In October 2021 my client Rachel attended a B&Q store along with her 1-year-old son. Rachel selected a few items, which she paid for, and then went to exit the store with her purchases in her son’s pushchair.
However, as Rachel was exiting the store, she was accosted by a security guard employed by Mitie Security. The guard prevented Rachel from exiting the store, aggressively claimed that he had seen her put several goods in her handbag without paying for them, and loudly accused her of being a “shop lifter”.
Rachel was understandably very distressed by the guard’s false accusations, especially as this was occurring immediately inside the store and was witnessed by a large number of people. Rachel calmly attempted to explain her innocence; however, the guard claimed that he had seen her put items into her handbag on CCTV and demanded that she open the bag.
Rachel was scared and intimidated by the guard’s behaviour, so much so that she felt obliged to comply with his demands. Rachel’s handbag, her purchases and her son’s pushchair were then searched; nothing stolen was found. Nevertheless, the guard continued to insist that Rachel must have something hidden on her person and demanded that Rachel empty her pockets as well.
Rachel was increasingly concerned at the guard’s aggressive demeanour and asked him to summon a store manager. The guard then pointed to a nearby member of B&Q staff and stated that she was the manager. Rachel asked the manager what policy the guard was operating under, that allowed him to humiliate and harass customers in such a manner?
Sadly, the manager merely reiterated the guard’s false allegations that Rachel had stolen items. They continued to refuse to allow Rachel to leave the store and instead insisted that she accompany them to a side office where, they claimed, they would produce CCTV evidence that would prove that she was a “liar and a thief.” As Rachel was being escorted to the office the guard remarked that “You people are always stealing here”. Once at the office they refused to allow Rachel inside and she had to wait outside, fearful that she would be pursued and manhandled if she tried to leave, albeit secure in the knowledge of her own innocence.
Shortly thereafter, after having indeed viewed the CCTV footage, the store manager and the guard opened the office door. The guard offered Rachel an insincere and dismissive apology, acknowledging that she had not in fact stolen anything. He further stated that he had stopped Rachel because he had seen her look in her handbag whilst in the store. Rachel remonstrated with him and questioned why he had lied about seeing her stealing. However, having only moments before taken Rachel ‘prisoner’ and made her listen to all his slurs and accusations, the guard was now uninterested in her, and went away without any word.
Rachel is of Black Caribbean descent and could not understand why she, in particular, was stopped for such an innocuous activity – simply looking in her handbag – other than being racially profiled by the guard. Rachel questioned the manager about this and the meaning of the guard’s earlier comment about “You people…”; however, the manager was unable to offer any explanation for his behaviour. Rachel requested the manager’s and the guard’s name, but she only identified herself by her first name and the guard as “Mitie” (i.e. the Security Company he worked for) refusing to provide any other details.
Rachel subsequently submitted a complaint to B&Q, who apologised for the incident and offered a “gift voucher” as a gesture of good will.
Rachel, a person of the utmost good character, was deeply upset at the accusation of theft that had been levelled against her. Furthermore, she felt extremely humiliated that the incident had taken place in full view of members of the public, B&Q staff, and her son. Rachel is a teacher and was recognised by a member of the public during the incident, causing damage to her reputation in the community, as she was later questioned about the incident by a former pupil.
After Rachel instructed me to act on her behalf, I made immediate efforts to obtain the relevant CCTV footage from B & Q and sent letters of claim to both B & Q and Mitie Security seeking damages on behalf of Rachel for false imprisonment, assault and battery and trespass to goods.
Following the incident, Rachel was deeply traumatised by what had happened to her. She experienced sleep disturbance, specifically nightmares, waking in a panic and being unable to return to sleep. She experienced racing thoughts and jumpiness and felt particularly anxious in shops. This anxiety was naturally exacerbated if she saw security personnel. She was also fearful of being again accused of theft and of her children being removed by Social Services. These are not the sort of symptoms which can be resolved by a ‘gift voucher’ and Rachel was quite right to seek full legal redress with the assistance of a specialist solicitor.
I arranged a psychological examination for Rachel. The appointed doctor was of the view that Rachel was suffering with a Specific Phobia and Depression. The expert recommended that Rachel undergo Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and that with such treatment, she should return to her pre-incident state of health.
I disclosed Rachel’s medical report to the Mitie Security, who had failed to either admit or deny liability for the actions of their Security Guard, but it was only when I gave them notice of commencement of County Court proceedings that they started to engage properly with the settlement process.
I am pleased to confirm that I have recently concluded Rachel’s claim by way of an out-of-court settlement for substantial damages, which includes the projected cost of the psychotherapy she requires, and which should now allow her to achieve closure on this traumatic event.
Unfortunately, it is far from uncommon, in my experience, for store security guards – pretend policemen at the best of times – to fall into the same vices which police officers are prone to, such as authoritarian aggression, without any of the saving graces of professionalism and proper training.
It is far from unusual for security guards to put their egos where the evidence should be and to accost and ‘arrest’ innocent shoppers without reasonable cause and I have written before about the failings of Store Security, and the Wild West industry of private security generally.
If you have suffered a similar experience of being assaulted by a security guard and/or being detained on false accusations of shoplifting, please don’t hesitate to contact me for assistance and advice.
The name of my client has been changed.
You must be logged in to post a comment.