Accused of shoplifting in M&S

[Crystal Maze]

Thanks again for the comments. At the moment I am waiting to hear from M&S after supplying dates and amounts spent etc.in an attempt to prove purchase. At the end of the day I really don't want to ever set foot in any of their stores again (their loss not mine) so as you say can't be bothered to waste any more time beating myself up about the whole incident. It was scary and unpleasant but I'm still here. Not sure that the same can be said for M&S though! Happy New Year to all and hope that it is a good one. Thanks for all the comments and advice on here, it's been really helpful.

[ostell]

If you had told him that you were exchanging then he should have at least investigated. Have you got the stuff that you were trying to change or was that taken off you?

[Crystal Maze]

Everything that I was returning had valid current receipts and had been purchased on-line and collected from the store two days earlier. They did take them from me but had to give them back as they were without any doubt whatsoever mine. Luckily I had purchased them on line so just sent them back by post and got my refunds that way. I do remember the female staff member saying accusingly that another item that I was returning had been purchased using a credit voucher. When I asked her why that was a problem she just ignored me. The item that I was accused of stealing (£29.50) had no receipt and I had intended to exchange it for something else. After chucking various accusations at me the male security went off to the changing rooms and reappeared with two items valued at £45 each which I agreed that I had tried on. As far as I could make out I think the gist of the accusation was that I had put a £45 item on the hanger and taken one costing £29.50 which if it were true would make me a pretty rubbish shoplifter. The female staff member asked him where the other items that I had tried on were and he mumbled that they had all been put back on the rails by M&S staff. This all happened about 40 minutes after I had been to the changing rooms and after I had sat and had a coffee and then done my food shopping. Still makes me really angry about the whole thing to be honest but can't now be bothered to do anything about it. At no point did he do any investigating at all. I have written to them with dates and amounts spent from September to December to that they could go through their till records to see if I had purchased the item but needless to say have never had a reply. Even if I did receive an apology I never want to set foot in their stores again as what I went through that day has made me detest M&S.

[Crystal Maze]

Just got my second letter from DWF asking for payment of £85 for 'security' costs. It's joined the first one in the bin. Strangely they are adressing them to a man so haven't even got my name right!

[ostell]

They should know better than try and claim for security costs. That got a rebuke from the court when RLP tried that one. What security costs? The security man was doing the job he was being paid for (even if very badly). Even you hadn't interrupted his calm he would have still been paid.

Have you thought about taking it up to the CEO of M&S?

[Crystal Maze]

I've just written directly to the store manager asking why I haven't received the courtesy of a reply to my previous correspondence where I gave details of all transactions and dates of purchases going back to September to enable them to try and 'prove purchase' which quite honestly I think will be impossible but that is what they asked for so they got it. I also complained about the treatment I received and asked why it had taken place while I was at Customer Services returning fully receipted goods etc. and why I had been told to admit having something that I hadn't paid for so that the police weren't called. I didn't and they weren't. Basically I have asked for an explanation before I elevate to Head Office. I'll keep you informed.

[ostell]

Start at the top rather than a manager trying to cover things up.

[Crystal Maze]

I'll see what they come back with. Having heard their profit results given out today i would have thought they need every customer they can get!

[Crystal Maze]

Things are moving on. The store have passed on to the head office but I have been told that it may not be possible to check the transactions as they have a limit on their records! I've also asked why this wasn't checked at the time when I requested it. Meanwhile DWF have taken to calling my home number. As withheld numbers are blocked they can only leave a message so I am just ignoring this as well. I have also complained to M&S about being harassed by DWF so will see what happens.

[Crystal Maze]

I just had to share this! I today received a letter from DWF advising that although I have provided proof of purchase to M&S, DWF are not attempting to recover the cost of goods. Their 'invoice' is for 'security' costs.

Quote from their letter "The security cost is for the detection, apprehension, escorting to a safe area for interviewing, CCTV surveillance and review, report writing for police and internal use. Security costs are the overall costs of Marks and Spencers Plc staff being removed from their daily roles due to an unforseen incident. Shop theft is an unforeseen incident. Regardless as to whether you paid for the goods you took beyond the security point, a security cost does become due and payable for the aforementioned reasons"

Goes on to say that they are holding this matter for 7 days. Nice little earner if it worked.

[Kati]

I just had to share this! I today received a letter from DWF advising that although I have provided proof of purchase to M&S, DWF are not attempting to recover the cost of goods. Their 'invoice' is for 'security' costs.

Quote from their letter "The security cost is for the detection, apprehension, escorting to a safe area for interviewing, CCTV surveillance and review, report writing for police and internal use. Security costs are the overall costs of Marks and Spencers Plc staff being removed from their daily roles due to an unforseen incident. Shop theft is an unforeseen incident. Regardless as to whether you paid for the goods you took beyond the security point, a security cost does become due and payable for the aforementioned reasons"

Goes on to say that they are holding this matter for 7 days. Nice little earner if it worked.

Sounds about right ... hopefully you'll be filing the letter with the rest and ignoring it?

[Amethyst]

I just had to share this! I today received a letter from DWF advising that although I have provided proof of purchase to M&S, DWF are not attempting to recover the cost of goods. Their 'invoice' is for 'security' costs.

Quote from their letter "The security cost is for the detection, apprehension, escorting to a safe area for interviewing, CCTV surveillance and review, report writing for police and internal use. Security costs are the overall costs of Marks and Spencers Plc staff being removed from their daily roles due to an unforseen incident. Shop theft is an unforeseen incident. Regardless as to whether you paid for the goods you took beyond the security point, a security cost does become due and payable for the aforementioned reasons"

What an absolute crock.

You were

'apprehended' in M&S last week by the security guy

The security guy's daily role is Security which presumably involves

detection, apprehension, escorting to a safe area for interviewing, CCTV surveillance and review, report writing for police and internal use.

He was wrong, you've evidenced he was wrong, he wasted his own time, you should not pay for that, particularly as he was performing his 'daily role', just poorly.


Oxford Judgment ( https://legalbeagles.info/forums/fil...tch?id=1181447 ) is pretty damn clear on this...

The difficulty which it seems to me is in the way of the claimants in the present claim
is this. The claimants (indirectly) employed two people at its Milton Keynes shop to
carry out security duties. This was the state of affairs at the time the defendants
entered the shop. What Kent and Cummings did thereafter was simply to act as the
security staff they were. They had, it was agreed, four tasks: (a) watching the
security television cameras; (b) patrolling the aisles; (c) apprehending anyone found
or suspected of stealing; and (d) processing them thereafter, which sometimes
involved calling the police. This was the work for which the security personnel were
employed, whether or not any shoplifters appeared on a particular day. If there were
no shoplifters they would do tasks (a) and (b). On the day material to this case they
were performing all their functions: they watched the young women via the camera or
cameras; they went down on to the shop floor and watched them leave; they
apprehended them and they took them back to a holding room for questioning, for
identification, to await the police and to complete some paperwork. In short, they did
exactly what they were paid by TSS to do and exactly what the claimants paid TSS
for them to do. In these circumstances it seems to me difficult to establish that the
defendants caused any identifiable loss. Security staff would have been paid and
present whether or not the defendants were shoplifting. The security equipment was
already installed, operational and, presumably paid for.

14. The claimant in the instant case has not established either that the staff in question
were “significantly diverted from their usual activities” or that there was “any
significant disruption to its business” which, in this type of case, may amount to the
same thing. Nor was there any loss of revenue generation.

15. The two security people, far from being diverted from their usual activities, were in
fact actively engaged in them. They were doing just what the claimants paid for
them to do. I do not think that it avails the claimants to say that because they were
busy apprehending, they could not be patrolling or doing camera invigilation. It
might just as well be observed that when they were patrolling they could not be
looking at the security cameras anyway. They could not carry out all aspects of their
job simultaneously in any event. The shop continued to trade undisturbed and there is
no evidence that any non-security staff were involved with these defendants.

16. So the claim in respect of staff time cannot, in my judgment, be established. I was
not clear if, at the end of the case, the other two alleged heads of loss – administrative
costs and security equipment costs – were still being sought. But, if so, these claims
too cannot succeed. Neither can be shown to be attributable to the defendants’
activities. The amounts spent by the claimant would have been identical had the
defendants stayed at home or limited their shoplifting to other establishments.

and of course, barring the fact that you hadn't stolen anything and the security guard was wrong. The Oxford case was an admitted case of theft.

[Crystal Maze]

I must admit I am so tempted to reply but having escalated to M&S as an official complaint I wil ignore and see what happens with M&S. The letter did strike me as a last desperate attempt to extract money as surely no-one in their right mind could possibly believe their claims!

[Kati]

I must admit I am so tempted to reply but having escalated to M&S as an official complaint I wil ignore and see what happens with M&S. The letter did strike me as a last desperate attempt to extract money as surely no-one in their right mind could possibly believe their claims!

They seem to think people are going to just pay up. Hopefully m&s will get back to you soon, but ignoring the DWF is the best thing to do atm!
Let us know what m&s say x

[ostell]

I would be tempted to append a copy of that letter to the complaint currently with M&S asking them why they are trying to extract money from you when they have admitted that they made the error in stopping you an it is you that should be raising a charge against them for being detained.