(Appreciation to the mod team and hopefully I have sanitized this enough)
Hey guys, I’m currently dealing with a highly retaliatory situation involving a major national retailer and local police. Corporate HQ is gaslighting me, and I need some outside legal perspectives on the validity of these documents and corporate vicarious liability.
I have undisputed, continuous audio recordings of the entire inciting incident, and I have attached heavily redacted copies of the two defective trespass notices for reference.
The Incident: My family was at a local branch of a major retailer. Staff attempted to misapply purchase limits, actively discriminating against my daughter by refusing to let her make her own independent purchase.
I asked to speak with the Store Manager to address this consumer rights violation. Instead, a Stock Manager came out to handle the situation. He was immediately hostile and ordered me out based purely on staff hearsay.
When the actual Store Manager finally appeared, I calmly explained the situation and quoted the Human Rights Act regarding age discrimination and refusal of sale. On my audio recording, the Store Manager explicitly states to me: "I'm not going to trespass." > However, because he could not legally counter my argument and wanted to force us out without admitting fault, the manager called the police and completely fabricated a "staff safety threat." My continuous audio definitively proves there was absolutely no aggression, swearing, or threat of any kind from my family.
Forgery 1: The Police Privacy Breach (See Image 1) Following the incident, a police officer (who is currently under active IPCA investigation for unrelated harassment against me) issued a trespass notice to my private residence. To do this, he unlawfully accessed the Police NIA database to extract my family's full names and home address.
As you can see in the first attached image, the notice he issued is legally defective: it is authorized generically by the corporate entity name (e.g., "RETAILER NZ") rather than a specifically authorized occupier.
Forgery 2: Retail Manager's Retrospective Cover-Up (See Image 2) I sent that first defective, police-issued notice to Corporate HQ as part of a formal complaint.
The local Store Manager then took our illegally obtained personal information from that first police notice and mailed a second trespass notice to our home. As seen in the second attached image, this notice was issued and signed on April 21, 2026, but actively attempts to retrospectively backdate the trespass to begin on March 20, 2026. Furthermore, it is legally defective: it is signed anonymously by "[First Name Only] (Store manager)"—no surname, and no legal standing.
Evidence Suppression & The SAR: To definitively clear my name regarding the fabricated safety threat, I requested the store CCTV footage. The retailer explicitly denied this request, citing "the privacy of other shoppers and staff" to withhold the footage. This denial occurred despite me explicitly advising them they could redact/blur any other individuals in the video. They are actively suppressing exculpatory evidence. I have now launched a full Subject Access Request (SAR) under the Privacy Act to compel its release.
The Corporate Cover-Up: I tracked down a Parent Company Executive via LinkedIn to force this directly to Corporate Legal. I provided the dual forged notices. I formally offered to supply my continuous audio recordings proving the fabrication, but only after the store manager made his official written statements.
Instead of investigating the blatant backdating and privacy breaches, Corporate Legal formally ratified the entire situation. They replied in writing: "We are satisfied that your matter is being managed appropriately by [Retailer]" and refused further involvement.
My Questions: I have already escalated to the Privacy Commissioner and Commerce Commission, but I need a sanity check on the strict legality here:
- Under the Trespass Act 1980, can a notice be retrospectively backdated by a month? Furthermore, are notices authorized generally by a corporate entity ("RETAILER NZ") or anonymously by a first name ("First Name (Store manager)") legally binding, or are they void ab initio?
- By explicitly stating in writing that they are "satisfied" with the management of the matter after being notified of the backdated document fraud and privacy breach, has Corporate legally adopted vicarious liability for the manager's actions?
Appreciate any insights. We just want the targeted corporate/police harassment at our private residence to stop.
