security guard asking to see bank app

[ocpwr]

Is it ever acceptable for a security guard in a shop to demand to look at my bank app to prove that i had paid for my shopping? That happened to me today in a very well known shop and to be honest i am still reeling a bit.
I do have mental health issues so my brain gets a bit confused sometimes.

That is assault and battery and theft and possession of stolen goods

And a cash payout for civil damages too.

This

I wouldn't log onto my banking app in front of another person but I would open my wallet and show my recent transactions in there. The card numbers etc are not displayed (think the last 4 digits might be but nothing else) so it doesn't pose a security risk in the same way as a banking app.

I don't have online banking so would have been screwed

I always take a receipt now. Seem to be getting stopped a lot in Morrisons. Must have a look about me...

I would say not.

As a pp said, the till will show the transaction.

The only thing I would say is that sometimes people wave their card at the self serve machine and walk off, and actually the transaction doesn't go through because they've not realised that it had asked them to put their PIN in. But then a member of the sales staff should ask them to go back, rather than a security guard wrongly demanding this and that proof. I've actually seen a member of staff go after someone and ask them to come back, and they did and it was all fine.

I also feel like we are innocent until proven guilty in this country and all of this is reversing the burden of proof. If someone thinks I haven't paid, they should prove I haven't, rather than me having to prove that I did (this isn't the case for things like returning items but if they are accusing you of shoplifting, they should have evidence).

No it doesn't on my main bank account. I have a Starling account which shows the transactions right away but neither my Coop nor my Nationwide account apps show transactions for several days. I'm not hanging around a supermarket that long

Even when walking out the store, the guard goes to me "I'll be watching you from now on

how rude - but they don't like you standing up to them - especially if you are a woman - how dare you!

This takes significantly longer; which is probably why he asked to see it on her app, which would usually show a pending payment immediately. If OP declined, or the transaction didn't show, they'd have gone for till receipts - but that would have delayed OP more.

It's more likely that he was suggesting the fastest route for OP to be free to go about her day; rather than that he was trying to find out if she was worth robbing, or on a power trip.

For the majority of people, they'd want to clear it up quickly and carry on with whatever they were doing.

The security guard can ask and the OP is free to say no and walk out the door.

She was free to go about her day as soon as she paid for the goods.

The shop and employees do not have any power to hold the OP while they run checks on the the till or cameras etc.
To arrest her (which is they would be doing) they have to have proof (a witness) to the fact that goods had been stolen.

We give the police extra permissions of being allowed to hold while they investigate a crime they did not witness. (On the basis they need to form a opinion on can they rely on a witness or evidence produced that a crime was committed and that it was by the person they are holding.)

A security guard like anyone else has the power to detain you if they have a reasonable belief you may have committed an indictable offence until a police officer can attend . Theft is indictable. So they can stop you and if they have a reasonable belief they can insist you stay until the police arrive. They can use force if they have to.
Saying that you don't have to show them your banking app. I'd decline that as well and ask what they propose l. I'd also ask the basis I'm being asked because if it's a random stop it's not a reasonable suspicion is it. If they say they've seen me put something in my bag that's different even if they're mistaken. So I'd want to know the basis and under which power they were asking.

Civilian Powers of Arrest
Care must be taken, when assessing the evidence in a case involving the purported exercising of civilian powers of arrest. Such powers of arrest are dependent upon certain preconditions.
The principal civilian powers of arrest can be found in section 24A, PACE 1984.
Members of the public (other than constables) may only arrest for "indictable" offences.
There are 2 conditions which apply:-
• That there are reasonable grounds to believe the arrest is necessary for a reason specified; and
• It is not reasonably practical for a constable to make the arrest
The reasons specified are to prevent the person in question:-
• Causing physical injury to himself or any other person
• Suffering physical injury
• Causing loss of or damage to property
• Making off before a constable can assume responsibility
Any force used to affect the arrest may be an assault and unlawful; and
Any force used to resist the arrest may be lawful (see R v Self 95 Cr. App R. 42).
However in (R v Lee, TLR 24 October 2000), it was held that when a defendant was charged with assault with intent to resist arrest, it was irrelevant whether the defendant honestly believed that the arrest was lawful. Members of the public (as well as police officers) may take action, including reasonable force, to prevent a breach of the peace, which would not necessarily involve exercising the formal powers of arrest.

I was in Waitrose yesterday. In the booze aisle a supervisor and a security guard were confronting a bloke. The supervisor had seen the bloke putting two bottles of booze in his bag and then returning one to the shelf. The bloke said he'd picked one bottle up and then changed his mind so put it back. The supervisor said there were two and you put them in that bag and then put one back.
It was becoming a bit heated so I moved on but in those circumstances the staff had the right to detain. I'm not sure of the consequences if the supervisor was mistaken.

Some years ago I was grabbed by a member of staff at Lidl when the alarm went off as I was leaving, I wasn't the only person leaving. I had no bag and had left empty handed as the item I was shopping for was out of stock. I advised the person to let go of me as I'd be forced to defend myself from his assault. I left the shop and went about my business.

The problem is that shoplifting has massively increased. I always get a paper receipt how else can I prove that I have paid?

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask fir proof, not on a bank app though. Just get a paper, simple.

No. If he had doubts as to whether I'd paid I'd ask to view the relevant CCTV with him, or check the till, or both.

And I'd definitely be complaining to the shop about his conduct.

I disagree. They are the ones trying to say you haven't paid, so they can prove it. I don't like the onus being on the customer, it should be on the business. Especially if they can't be bothered to employ enough staff.

And the increased "shoplifting" we are reading about isn't shoplifting, it's looting and ram-raiding. It's a much bigger problem that someone nicking a bottle of wine. Did anyone see the articles about the Coop supermarkets? I don't think those gangs are going to take much notice of someone asking for a receipt.

Get real

It wouldn’t bother me. I get angry about the number of people thieving from shops, not the people trying to stop it. It must be a horrible job.

I'd be happy to show mine. I do t get the problem with it. You can cover your bank account details if you were worried about identity theft . I wouldn't see that as any risk personally.

I hate shoplifters. They are scum so always happy to help do things to help prevent them. Normalising showing bags and receipts is fine by me.

Of course I never steal so it doesn't bother me.

If you don't like shops that do this then don't shop at those shops. They are private businesses and should be allowed to take precautions to stop thieving scumbags

I think as you were presumably offering to accompany him to the till it was unreasonable for him to refuse. Not everyone uses a banking app, I wouldn't want to log in with someone watching.

A security guard DOES have a right to detain you, and can even handcuff you in certain situations.
https://www.get-licensed.co.uk/get-daily/what-security-guards-can-cant-do/#:~:text=A%20security%20guard%20can%20detain%20you%20and%20touch%20you%20to,and%20badge%20on%20their%20uniforms.

A security guard CAN hold a customer via a citizen arrest, until the police come.
https://www.get-licensed.co.uk/get-daily/what-security-guards-can-cant-do/#:~:text=A%20security%20guard%20can%20detain%20you%20and%20touch%20you%20to,and%20badge%20on%20their%20uniforms.

No, I wouldn’t log on to my banking app in public and show someone.
What’s especially galling about some of these stories is that where I live security guards do absolutely fuck all about scally kids and drugged out crack heads nicking things in shops but are happy to exert a bit of power of normal people just going about their day who haven’t stolen anything and who are more likely than not going to be compliant and reasonably easy to deal with.

I don’t have a banking app for one of my current accounts so depending which debit card I’d used I may well not have been able to . What would he have done then? Dh has a Nokia 3310 so he’d also have no chance! 😆

A security guard CAN hold a customer via a citizen arrest, until the police come.

they’d have to be sure because otherwise if it turns out the person they’ve held has done nothing wrong they’d possibly be able to sue them. You can sue the police for an unnecessary arrest so fairly sure you could sue a security guard.

Mine doesn't show for a day or two on my credit card app, I get a notification on my watch as it goes through though. I alway take my receipt though because I could go into another shop that sells the item or back in the same shop later.