A DIY enthusiast has been banned from every B&Q store in the country for life ? after he tried to raise concerns about their exposed wiring. Raymond Meerabeau, 64, noticed the cover had come off a fuse box near the lifts, at the New Malden branch, in south-west London.
====
I don't know why he's complaining.
There's no danger to anyone. The purpose of the box is to prevent unauthorised meddling. However the B&Q reaction is amazing to such a trivial incident. And unenforcable.
There should be a nationwide boycot.
I got a 20% discount after I pointed out they'd wired a lawnmower extension lead the wrong way round (plug to mains, socket to lawnmower) on their display board.
Only on the one occasion though, not for life.
Owain
I've just read the Mail article (and seen the pictures).
The difference between us is now apparent.
I'm white.
Owain
On 03 Jun 2015, "harryagain" grunted:
Agreed; bit of an odd one that the customer got aerated about it.
Also agreed. Whcih tells me that there's more to the story than what the Mail has published. Do we really think this is the first contact that Mr Meereabeau has had with the manager of New Malden B&Q? No doubt this incident is the straw that broke the camel's back.
In message , harryagain writes
It would be interesting to see what happens if he tries to use a credit/debit card to pay in a store though. Is their technology clever enough to spot this?
And what exposed wiring?
All I can see is insulated cabling in a cosmetic cabinet.
That is ridiculous, there has to be more to it than just taking a picture and showing it to the manager surely, or the company would be ripped to shreds if the guy took them to court.
I live a short distance from there, and I've seen many people, well told of many people, taking pictures of things, and sending them to partners at home to get permission to buy etc. Brian
Not even that the door catch appears to be a simple magnetic one, not a lock. The box is purely cosmetic.
Inclined to agree but, technically, you aren't allowed to take pictures on private property without permission. Hence the snappers with BFO lenes taking pictures of "celebrities" from a public place.
Possibly. Or it may just be that you didn't try a bit of DIY photojournalism and tell the B&Q manager "give me ?1,000 or I'll send these photos to the DM who are thick enough to believe there's a risk"
I recently had a random search whilst working at a warehouse.
Security found two "banned" items. One was my phone - although my induction did say you could carry a phone but could not use it in certain parts of the building. The same security guard signed my induction:-) The other item was my camera. When I explained that I was taking photos for head office of my work (as per my RAMS) the security guard used a bit of Geordie common sense and said "Sounds like too much paperwork fella - I'll just tick the no contraband box"
Unless there are two people of the same name, it would appear to be Dr Raymond Meerabeau, of the University of Surrey. I can't help but feel he could be one of those people, often academics, who spend their time picking up the tiniest errors and highlighting them - classic internet contributors :-)
I am reminded of the Speedwatch member who recently had to surrender his speed camera because he was reporting far too many motorists. he couldn't understand that the Police only wanted him to report those exceeding the ACPO guideline speeds, rather than everybody who was the tiniest amount above the limit.
In message , Dave Liquorice writes
I think it's more like unless you are specifically asked not to, you can take reasonably non-intrusive pictures on private property with public access. However, I agree with most of the readers' comments.
That's not the point, though. B&Q banned a customer for voicing concerns. That seems OTT, and they now have publicity that is not helpful for them, whilst have a ban that is unenforceable:
"MailOnline has approached B&Q to ask how the company plans on enforcing Mr Meerabeau's ban but is yet to receive a response."
It does, which makes me think, like some others on here, that we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg and he is all too well known to the store.
Nevertheless, Head Office, after due consideration, not only backed the store manager but extended the ban to all its stores, which also suggests that there is a lot more to this story than we have been told.
I doubt the Mail will get a reply. Even if B&Q have the facial recognition or mobile phone tracking technology in place to enforce the ban, they are hardly likely to admit to it.
Well, quite. Wouldn't do for a sensationalist paper to give all the facts if it prevents the 'righteous indignation' of its readers.
It seems a weird shop unless the shopper antagonized them somehow,in hardware shops in AU I often take pictures of items when stated price seem odd or differs from marked on item price and show it to the girl at the till and never have any trouble.
On 03 Jun 2015, GB grunted:
No the POINT is that *the Daily Mail has reported that* B&Q banned a customer for voicing concerns. A not-so-subtle difference!
Oh, it's even better than that. The Wail seem to have merely lifted the story from the local rag...
Notice the dates. And the photos. And much of the wording...
Bet they actually banned a particularly obnoxious customer for being a complete pain in the arse on a number of occasions and this was just the last straw.
Bet they see no effect on traffic through their stores at all and he has said that he will comply with the ban, so they won't need to enforce it, just needed to ban him.
What a surprise.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.