Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Beware of the over zealous security guard in Coop food Lordship Lane who stops people who have left the store, having paid for their goods, have a receipt and have used a re-usable bag.

Very unpleasant experience today and he has no understanding nor appreciation of social distancing.

Won't EVER be using that store again.

Still not as bad as the LL Coop security guy (who I haven?t seen for a few weeks actually) who casually has a wee outside against the coop sign by the ATM when he needs the loo mid shift. Man has amazing lack of shame; just wanders back inside to his job on the door whilst still doing up his flies and belt. So much for rigorous hygiene and hand washing in the times of COVID...!!
Rarely use LL Co op as I find products very pricey. Did go in before Xmas as could not be bothered to queue for Marks. I just wanted a couple of things to tide me over. Found aisles blocked with stuff waiting to go onto shelves, people leaving baskets on the floor whilst they browsed further down the aisle (trip hazard) Some fruit looking past it's use by date. It served my purpose that day but how anyone could afford to do their weekly shop there!

No not a bitter post, I explained what happened to me. I don't take to being accused of being a thief when I had paid for my goods and had a receipt as proof of purchase. The security guard had clearly not been watching and made a rash and WRONG stop. And yes it has been reported to them.


Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Never had any problem or rudeness there and the

> staff are lovely.

>

> Quite a bitter post and surely not the right place

> to make a complaint.

>

> I would suggest you contact head office and they

> can look into it.

jazzer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Beware of the over zealous security guard in Coop

> food Lordship Lane who stops people who have left

> the store, having paid for their goods, have a

> receipt and have used a re-usable bag.

> Very unpleasant experience today and he has no

> understanding nor appreciation of social

> distancing.

> Won't EVER be using that store again.



A clever thief would just send someone ahead with valid receipt to occupy the security guards time and then walk out with all the stuff straight past the fuss


False positives isn't it and they aren't good. I'd point that out but other than that couldn't really be bothered.

Omg I am glad I have seen this post!

Same thing happened to someone I know.

The police were called by the person I knew & even they were shocked by the behaviour of the security guard & manager.

They were too close to him & he was asking them to keep their distance

The person was advised by the police to report it through the correct channels

That's abit out of order!


If you've been accused of something that you haven't done I'm sure you'd be pissed too!


spark67 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ah yes we were there that day, & saw you in the

> store swearing and shouting abuse at staff, you

> may have a valid point, but lost the moral high

> ground with the way you were shouting and swearing

> at staff, REALLY loudly.

spark67 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ah yes we were there that day, & saw you in the

> store swearing and shouting abuse at staff, you

> may have a valid point, but lost the moral high

> ground with the way you were shouting and swearing

> at staff, REALLY loudly.


Yes I did, as I had been wrongly stopped having been an honest PAYING customer with a receipt for the goods I had purchased. I paid for my Three items at the self checkout, thank God I printed the receipt. I then put the items in the carrier bag I was re-using, on top of the the shopping I'd done in another store earlier. I left the store and outside, I was "invited" to return which I happily did. The security guards excuse was he stopped me because I was using my own re-usable carrier bag. Really...................


I was extremely annoyed and angry at being incorrectly stopped, that's why I raised my voice, swore (incorrectly) and loudly and made a massive scene. If the guard had been watching properly he would have seen that I had paid by card for my goods.


I asked the security guard guard to get the store manager, I was initially presented with someone from bakery (not the store manager) who claimed to be in charge, then a team leader appeared again saying he was in charge (and again not the store manager), finally an acting manager appeared. Each time I had to repeat what had happened. If you had been stopped incorrectly having not done anything wrong, no doubt you'd be annoyed as well. And the alarms did not go off either.


I invited the store to call the Police which they naturally and unsurprisingly declined.

This happened to us the Christmas before last.


I had preordered all the Christmas stuff from M&S, and we went to the store in Lordship Lane on Christmas Eve to pick it up. I put it all in my shopping trolley and we left the store.


OUTSIDE the store we were stopped by a security guard who, in full sight and sound of the very many passers by, asked me to show him what was in my trolley.


I was absolutely furious, I showed him the (very long) receipt and he still wasn't happy, I opened the trolley and showed him what was in it (not that he could see everything, because it was rammed) and said if he wanted to pursue this he should take me/us (my partner was with me) into a back office, not do all this in the street in full view of everybody.


Anyway, he didn't. He didn't even apologise, he just let us walk off.


To add insult to injury, when we got home we found some of the pre-prepared veg was open and leaking over everything, plus one of the starters and the stuffing for the turkey was missing. We had foolishly assumed that the staff on the till where the Christmas stuff was collected were checking it as they brought it out, as they do at the Walworth Road store.


We were in time to get the leaking veg replaced, as we found it as we were unpacking, but by the time we realised that stuff was missing M&S was closed and we couldn't get the stuffing anywhere else (a very kind person who posts on here gave us some stuffing on Christmas morning).


After Christmas, I went back to the store to complain about the missing stuff, and was just told oh well, if you weren't charged for it there's no problem, is there? (Er, it was our Christmas dinner).


I complained to M&S centrally, and to give them their due they were great, they apologised profusely for the security guard incident and said there would be staff training (I wouldn't have minded so much if it had all taken place in private, though I still don't know what caused him to pick on us) and gave me quite a lot of money - well, tokens - as compensation and also for the missing items.

Sue


Whatever you do, don't shop at PC world / curry's

They check everything on the way out.


Seriously if there is an issue with the security arrangements and staff maybe a word / email to the store manager will get it sorted or an explanation.


This forum is great for discussions but the coop manager may not read it.

I assure you Coop have already progressed it to Area Manager level and I am awaiting a phone call once the wrongful stop has been investigated. I actually felt violated being stopped in the street as I had done NOTHING wrong, hence making a scene of it. The guard is not employed directly by Coop but by a large corporation called Mitie. Yes he made a mitie error of judgement.

You'd expect to be able to see a list of what suspicious behavior is in the security guys notepad to justify any allegation, and maybe be given the opportunity address it.


Maybe one way of fighting back is to spend a couple of hours going over every purchase in detail and verifying until everyone is bored. :) There should really be no embarrassment factor about being stopped - you're not guilty just because of security checks.

Met Police do have legal powers to conduct a stop and search. (However much we agree or otherwise with how they use them)


I'm not 100% sure of the legalities, but I don't think Co-op or their sub-contract security firm do have any such powers. I would guess they have the power of citizen's arrest, but would need to substantiate their grounds for doing so.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...