Barred from TK Maxx

Tim M-U

It was an accident then. Most stores have policys to not put items unseen such as handbags, therefore the security guard might have suspected her of 'stealing' so therefore took her into an unseeled room which was not nesserary. all i can say is dont shop there ever again and write another letter appologising and clearing her name. intimadating a customer is wrong and not logal of em to ask what happened. at that time they didnt look at cctv. how dare em do dat.
unsure now where this leaves us? A loyal customer wouldnt do that and since thwy may have been 'irratable' or 'angry' might have triggered the system. what i'll say is contact the psa and the company and ask what to do for a guard asolting a customer and bullying one, this is far from illegal. a pair of socks aint a big deal and i was just a huge mis'understanding..

Cabaal

Doc_Savage wrote: »

the letter that she got from tkmaxx. says "our stores" and doesn't mention the stephens green address once.

I'm curious how TK-Maxx would enforce this?
If you went to say the TK-Maxx store in Kilkenny or Waterford how exactly do they expect to know you've entered the store.

Kind of pointless to attempt to ban from all stores as they can't enforce and would only know your in one of the stores if you were stopped with an item again and they looked up their records.

Pointless
:rolleyes:

inforfun

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

What I find strange is how the security guard was aware that the socks weren't paid for. After all some action must have triggered it. There's a subtle indication in the op that it was only €6 but shoplifting in total costs a huge amount of money so each incident, genuine or not is significant.

Aren't socks about the only clothing in TK maxx that dont have those security labels?

Doc_Savage

the only way i could see them enforcing it is if they had that same security guard on every store..... forever!

impossible... but if she were caught and arrested and charged, she could get deported. and we only got her visa updated recently to a stamp four on the basis that she's been in a relationship for the past four years with me!

Jumpy

Doc_Savage wrote: »

xxx admits she doesn't know what happened. not knowing what had transpired the pair left the store and were stopped by the guard after they left.

First things first, you should take out the names.

Secondly he should not have stopped you outside the store.

P. Breathnach

Jumpy wrote: »

... Secondly he should not have stopped you outside the store.

It is standard to stop people after they leave. So long as people are still on the premises, you cannot be sure what they intend to do with the shop's property: they might decide to buy it, or to return it to the display, or simply leave it behind.

The rights of a shopkeeper or the shopkeeper's representative to stop people is tricky ground, but it sounds in this case as if he did so by speaking with them, not by laying hands on them.

Jumpy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It is standard to stop people after they leave. So long as people are still on the premises, you cannot be sure what they intend to do with the shop's property: they might decide to buy it, or to return it to the display, or simply leave it behind.

The rights of a shopkeeper or the shopkeeper's representative to stop people is tricky ground, but it sounds in this case as if he did so by speaking with them, not by laying hands on them.

If people leave the store, they are not on the premises unless its a shopping centre. They cannot detain you physically, they can only call the Gardai.
But you are right, they returned voluntarily.

Jumpy

Jumpy wrote: »

If people leave the store, they are not on the premises unless its a shopping centre. They cannot detain you physically, they can only call the Gardai.
But you are right, they returned voluntarily.

Are you sure? I was always under the impression that you hadn't actually shoplifted anything until you left the store?

UrbanSea

That's true,how can you be proved to be stealing inside the shop?

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

The theft is deemed to occur once the customer has passed the last point of payment. This doesn't need to be physically outside the store / shopping centre etc merely past the last checkout.

wmpdd3

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm curious how TK-Maxx would enforce this?
If you went to say the TK-Maxx store in Kilkenny or Waterford how exactly do they expect to know you've entered the store.

Kind of pointless to attempt to ban from all stores as they can't enforce and would only know your in one of the stores if you were stopped with an item again and they looked up their records.

Pointless
:rolleyes:

Stores have look books with banned people in them.

razorblunt

wmpdd3 wrote: »

Stores have look books with banned people in them.

That does't answer the question though there's no way each branch would know unless the Till System recognised the name on the car payment with those on the banned list even then it may not be the same person.

There's no way that one branch would know a person is barred, I presume the deterrent is that if they are caught they may press charges, acceptanceof the letter from TK Maxx in the first place means you've acknowledged the banning.

tallaghtoutlaws

razorblunt wrote: »

That does't answer the question though there's no way each branch would know unless the Till System recognised the name on the car payment with those on the banned list even then it may not be the same person.

There's no way that one branch would know a person is barred, I presume the deterrent is that if they are caught they may press charges, acceptanceof the letter from TK Maxx in the first place means you've acknowledged the banning.

What? I worked in security for a well known department store and the control room for the security had a board on the wall with photos of well known shoplifters and banned folk. If TKMaxx were that bothered to actually stick to the ban and had decent security it is possible to make sure banned folk dont get in.

amdublin

To be fair I can completely see TK Maxx's point here.

Your friend did not pay for a pair of socks. When a person takes an item from a shop without paying for it, that is shoplifting.

From a risk perspective, they see you as a potential shoplifter because you accompanied one. They are entitled to allow whoever they want in their shop or disallow whoever they don't and in this case that is you (because they see you as a shoplifting risk).

If, as you say, it was a complete oversight that she did not pay I agree with the other's suggestion to write to head office explaining this.

gaeilgegrinds1

I was barred from a bar in a state of mistaken identity. I called in during the day and asked for evidence of what I had supposedly done. Turns out once I put tickets in front of them from where I had been on holidays at the time of the, 'incident,' they were very quick to apologise. Everyone makes mistakes, once. If they don't see her right it's their second mistake and time to take them down a peg. Best of luck

copacetic

Gamesnash.ie (Pat) wrote: »

The theft is deemed to occur once the customer has passed the last point of payment. This doesn't need to be physically outside the store / shopping centre etc merely past the last checkout.

the checkouts in tk maxx are on the opposite side of the store to the entrance, with all the goods in between. So you never 'pass the last checkout'. Same with nearly all stores except supermarkets?

Exclamation Marc

amcalester wrote: »

Its a bit of a tricky 1 here because to defame someone the statement has to be "published" ie overheard by someone other than the person defamed. In this case the accusation was overheard but only by the other girl who had "stolen" the socks and as the definition of defamation is

In this case the other girl can not be seen as a right thinking person because she did (accidentally) steal the socks so no defamation could have taken place.

I am open to correction on this, it's been a few years since I studied defamation law in Ireland and at the time it was being looked at by the Law Reform Commission.

edit: didnt see the above comments before I posted.

You are correct on this, a statement must be published to be actionable for defamation, its nothing to do with being "public"

And on a practical level, if you are going to sue for defamation you are going down a massively expensive road which is not worthwhile in the slightest.

Avoid going down a defamation route.

x in the city

If your friend got the time and money, Id say sueing tk would have a good outcome...

probably discrimination on their part for sure...

considering the money you spent there and basically that you did fek all, sue the cnuts.

probably wayy too much hassle tho

Exclamation Marc

I really don't see the point in suing TK Maxx and I really don't know why people are suggesting it. If you sue TK Maxx for this, the courts will obviously side with the store. They are logically not going to set a precedent where the friend of a shoplifter (and I know it was an accident, and completely a mistake) has legal recourse when stopped and questioned about an actual shoplift of someone they are in the shop with (albeit a mistake) as they had reasonable grounds to question and detain.

Yeah it may suck, but as a previous poster said, how often do you think TK Maxx hear "oh I'm sorry, it was a mistake" from someone intentionally trying to shoplift. It's unfortunate that the friend actually made a mistake, but you have to look at the bigger picture.

The best thing I can suggest, if your girlfriend wants to shop there again, would be to visit the shop, speak to the manager, apologise profusely for your friend and tell them how much is spent and how much loyalty is held towards the shop.

Unfortunately, they were stopped for trying to take something, and I do believe you when you say it was a mistake, but some people are going on here as if the attempted mistaken shoplift never happened. The staff and security were being unreasonable and overly harsh, but not to a degree that you can sue, maybe to a degree that you could complain in normal circumstances, but not here.

amdublin

FireballPitcher wrote: »

Unfortunately, they were stopped for trying to take something, and I do believe you when you say it was a mistake, but some people are going on here as if the attempted mistaken shoplift never happened. The staff and security were being unreasonable and overly harsh, but not to a degree that you can sue, maybe to a degree that you could complain in normal circumstances, but not here.

Sense at last!!!!

OP, imo you will waste a lot of money if you attempt to go down the legal route here.

Mr. Presentable

OP, she has only been barred from the shop. Not prosecuted. The fact is she was associated with a person who left the shop with goods unpaid for. The shop reserves the right to refuse admission.

Leave it be.

BROWNE51

If you can get a solicitor on a "no win / no fee" basis,you should proceed in that way.
I was going into a large household goods store chain in Dublin approx two years ago when I noticed a friend of mines picture on the window at the entrance.The picture was of my friend and a relative entering the store,the image was cctv quality.Neither of these people are or were shoplifters,both are self employed business owners.
I contacted my friend and took a photo of the photo in the window.There was no text on the photo and there were others on the a4 page also....the inference was that these were shoplifters.The store manager was contacted and asked why these people were on the window and he tried to pass it off as something from head office,the photo disappeared the following day.
The two in question enlisted a solicitor who took the case on the above basis and it was settled out of court for a 5 figure fee after approx 18 months.
What happened to your girlfriend was not acceptable and you should try going the same way,I dont think you will get any satisfaction with a verbal approach.It would appear she was treated as guilty by association,but Im no solicitor!.
Nothing ventured,nothing gained.I wouldnt shop there again on principle until you at least get an apology.My friend didnt get one but the disclaimer he signed and the cheque he received was more than satisfactory.If they think you will just go away,they will try and rebuff your attempts at pleading innocent..Just my two cents...good luck.

snowey07

OP did your girlfriend leave an address with Tkmaxx? Tkmaxx use RLP recovery services when people are stoppped and subsequently barred from their stores. They definitly do in the UK but Im not sure about here.

RLP will invoice you for the security guards time,the managers time (if you talked to them) and other sundry things.

have a look here at their website

Cabaal

BROWNE51 wrote: »

If you can get a solicitor on a "no win / no fee" basis,you should proceed in that way.
.

You'll find that those ambulance chasers only really care about injurys, in this instance its not worth their time and the evidence is stacked against the person as there was evidence that they left the shop without paying for an item.

term

snowey07 wrote: »

OP did your girlfriend leave an address with Tkmaxx? Tkmaxx use RLP recovery services when people are stoppped and subsequently barred from their stores. They definitly do in the UK but Im not sure about here.

RLP will invoice you for the security guards time,the managers time (if you talked to them) and other sundry things.

have a look here at their website

RLP, or Civil Recovery, not used in Ireland. Used in UK and US only AFAIK.

Also, some practical advice for retailers without legal-speak that may help on this site

http://www.mop.ie/dynamic/files/Litigation%20Dept%20Practical%20Steps%20for%20retailers%20in%20dealing%20with%20shoplifters%20PW%20Shelflife%2019%20June.pdf

Nolimits

Anyone suggesting suing is being ridiculous shoplifters work in pairs all the time even if they can legally on prosecute one they are absolutely right to take in both of them if they're together (by the way op not suggesting anything about your case in particular)

wmpdd3

term wrote: »

RLP, or Civil Recovery, not used in Ireland. Used in UK and US only AFAIK.

Also, some practical advice for retailers without legal-speak that may help on this site

http://www.mop.ie/dynamic/files/Litigation%20Dept%20Practical%20Steps%20for%20retailers%20in%20dealing%20with%20shoplifters%20PW%20Shelflife%2019%20June.pdf

Yeah, civil recovery is a brilliant idea, though only used where there is a conviction. but it doesn't exist in Ireland.

Corruptedmorals

Jumpy wrote: »

If people leave the store, they are not on the premises unless its a shopping centre. They cannot detain you physically, they can only call the Gardai.
But you are right, they returned voluntarily.

That's not how it works in practice, you can't prove beyond any doubt that they had no intention of paying for it UNTIL they've exited and the stolen goods have therefore left the store. Anything else is extremely dodgy and leaves open too much ground for the shoplifter to fight with. Where I work, security will not detain anyone until they've crossed the exit.

term

In the UK, the law states that to be a shoplifter, you must have passed the exit.
Whilst this is not the same in Ireland, and you can be arrested for detagging an item instore, due to the number of UK based retail companies operating here, the UK practice of not detaining a shoplifter until they have exited a premises has become common-place.
This is due to the UK head-offices defaulting to what they know is safe, and being unwilling to chance a law they are not 100% sure of here in Ireland. Better safe than sorry, i.e. lose a small amount in goods to lifter versus a potential €15k false arrest payment in the courts.

Run_to_da_hills

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm curious how TK-Maxx would enforce this?
If you went to say the TK-Maxx store in Kilkenny or Waterford how exactly do they expect to know you've entered the store.

Kind of pointless to attempt to ban from all stores as they can't enforce and would only know your in one of the stores if you were stopped with an item again and they looked up their records.

Pointless
:rolleyes:

It would show up if she was using any loyalty or credit cards.