Just out of interest....

[Gilbern]

I was recently in Santander.

 

 

I was about to leave the bank and walk back on to the High Street

when a member of staff stopped me and told me (along with 2 or 3 other customers)

that we would have to wait several minutes while the cashpoint was being emptied on the inside of the bank.

 

 

The automatic doors at the main entrance had been sealed.

We were unable to leave and customers outside were unable to enter.

 

 

This is just a minor point (asked out of interest more than anything else),

but I was wondering where Santander would stand legally on this.

 

 

Can a bank refuse customers the right to leave (even if only for a few minutes - about 5 in this case)

in this kind of situation

(i.e. where large amounts of money are being transferred/handled)?

 

 

Anyone know?

[dx100uk]

its their premises'

they have the right to allow/disallow/enter/exit

who they like when they like

I would assume just like a pub.

 

 

and ofcourse the security of yourselves and other

plays a part here too

 

 

their duty of care.

 

 

dx

[Gilbern]

I can see what you mean about duty of care and I can understand them being entitled to refuse to allow people in.

However, I've never heard of someone having the legal right to disallow another person's exit simply because they own the premises. I worked in local government for many years and the instruction was always that - should a visitor/customer/whatever - want to leave, then staff had absolutely NO right to detain them or block their exit.

Whilst I know licensed establishments will often refuse admittance, I've never heard of them refusing someone's right to exit.

Couldn't that be construed as false imprisonment even?

[dx100uk]

I wouldnt class it as being detailed

 

 

look at it this way . if they opened the door to let 'you' out

then someone could barge in

the major issue is stopping in/out until the money is secure.

 

 

no big deal

[Gilbern]

Fair comment.

Good taste in music by the way....

[dx100uk]

"it all makes perfect sense"

 

 

dx

[Guest]

gilbern

i see what you mean, out of interest.

seems the best way wld be to close the doors for anyone coming in and wait for any existing customers to leave. then do the money transfer. isnt that what wld normally be done.

that wld be the best 'duty of care' imo.

[BazzaS]

I was recently in Santander.

 

 

I was about to leave the bank and walk back on to the High Street

when a member of staff stopped me and told me (along with 2 or 3 other customers)

that we would have to wait several minutes while the cashpoint was being emptied on the inside of the bank.

 

 

The automatic doors at the main entrance had been sealed.

We were unable to leave and customers outside were unable to enter.

 

 

This is just a minor point (asked out of interest more than anything else),

but I was wondering where Santander would stand legally on this.

 

 

Can a bank refuse customers the right to leave (even if only for a few minutes - about 5 in this case)

in this kind of situation

(i.e. where large amounts of money are being transferred/handled)?

 

 

Anyone know?

 

Technically you could claim you were falsely imprisoned, provided you told them you insisted on leaving and that they had no authority to detain you.

 

Complaint to head office? Likely reply : "Very sorry for the inconvenience but necessary for the safety & security of both staff & customers".

 

Could you then sue for damages? Probably, but I would expect that if it came to court the court would agree you had been technically wronged and order damages of £1 ..... but at the same time might decide to make you liable for costs for bringing such a daft case!.

 

Also, expect that as soon as you raise such a complaint the bank (stating it is "To prevent any risk to the security of the bank and its staff by the situation recurring") will ban you for life from all of the bank's premises (+/- close your account if you bank with them, including withdrawing any overdraft facility, which is repayable immediately, "on demand").

 

So, in reality:

Technically you might have been falsely imprisoned but it wouldn't be worth pursuing.

[Consumer dude]

If a court found for such a claim, why would they then make the claimant pay costs if you were legally right..

[BazzaS]

If a court found for such a claim, why would they then make the claimant pay costs if you were legally right..

 

Because costs usually "follow the case", so USUALLY the loosing party pays (& pays costs for both sides)

Usually being the key. The court has wide latitude, and where a winning party has behaved badly, can allocate costs as it chooses.

"Legally right" doesn't mean that it was reasonable and proportionate to bring a case.

 

The court could decide that the harm was so slight that bringing it to court (with the costs attached and waste of the courts time!) was disproportionate. The court might be obliged in law to award damages, but express their displeasure by making the damages nominal (£1), and show their feeling on disproportionality by the costs order....

 

There is the "overiding objective" that the court must consider, justness with proportionality.

http://findlaw.co.uk/law/dispute_resolution/litigation/basics/the-overriding-objective.html

[maroondevo52]

I'm surprised they were there during opening hours, in my job I see them two or three times a week but always after closing time, never had a problem with them letting me in or out

[Consumer dude]

I'm surprised they were there during opening hours, in my job I see them two or three times a week but always after closing time, never had a problem with them letting me in or out

 

I agree that it could have been done outside of opening hours, as to me its common sense..

[maroondevo52]

I agree that it could have been done outside of opening hours, as to me its common sense..

 

Yes, I've seen them waiting outside the bank until they close, makes sense.

[BazzaS]

I agree that it could have been done outside of opening hours, as to me its common sense..

 

Depends what the issue was. If the machine had run out, early in the day (and there wasn't another working machine in parallel), it may have created less complaints to refill during opening hours than field a raft of complaints of "neither of your cash machines is working!"

 

If five minutes before closing, then waiting for closing seems the better option.

 

Just don't expect them to confirm if the branch holds one or two cassettes for use in such an emergency, or is a 'holding branch' for cash machine cassettes (anyone hazard a guess how much is in each cassette?).