TREATED VERY BADLY FOR DARING TO BUY AN EXPENSIVE ITEM FROM JOHN LEWIS INSTORE. On Saturday 21 February, 2016, my partner was treated in the most apalling and disgusting manner after making a large well considered purchase of a Macbook Pro Retina 15" laptop computer for which she paid £1599.00 in the Tamworth Branch of John Lewis. The sales assistant who showed us the Apple products was a very pleasant student working weekends. He was helpful and we were satisfied with his commitment to explain all the different options within the product line. Once the decision to purchase was made, the stock level checked and the documentation raised for the purchase by the salesman my partner took her documentation to the till to make the payment. The payment went through seamlessly and my partner was then told to stand in a queue nearby to collect her new purchase, which she duly did. There was a gentleman in front of her in the queue collecting a Dyson vacuum cleaner. Sarah, the assistant, took his documentation and collected his item from the secure area and handed it over with no fuss. She didn't ask for identification, just handed the item over with the paper work and the client left. My partner, now next in line to be served, handed her documentation over to Sarah who then appeared to lunge for a trolley, my partner quietly told her she wouldn't need the trolley, Sarah returned after a very long time and approached my partner with the Macbook Pro clutched to her chest in a furtive gesture and shoulder of arm holding the Mackbook was pulled back into her body. The body language Sarah adopted suggested she was not going to hand the item over. As she approached my partner Sarah immediately demanded my partner identify herself. Sarah persisted in her intimidating and bullying stance clutching the goods at which point my partner asked if Sarah was refusung to give her the Macbok Pro she had paid for. Sarah first say yes, she was refusing to hand the item over unless my partner complied and identified herself then and immediately retracted this statement but her body language indicated otherwise. Still clutching the MacBook firmly to her chest and slightly backward as if to prevent anyone snatching it from her. Sarah continued demanding identification from my partner from whom she had taken the original documentation from plus the till receipt minutes before. Sarah's embarrassing, intimidating and bullying demands for my partner to identify herself continued with my partner refusing to co-operate on the grounds she was not obliged to identify herself in order to receive her newly paid for goods. Sarah, in my opinion, made an assumption based possibly on my partners age, sex and casual dress. She possibly doubted my partners ability to pay for such an expensive item and therefore treated her like a common criminal or someone dishonestly trying to steal someone else's purchase, all with absolutely no foundation or evidence. Bullying, intimidation, sexism and ageist behaviour has no place in our society. Sarah was not following company policy by demanding my partner identify herself - she made that "rule" up on the spot in order to intimidate a client she misjudged to be vulnerable, old and defenseless and quite definitely not the demographic who would ever purchase a MacBook Pro Retina 15" laptop computer for a penny short if £1600.00. Sarah's mistaken perception of her position of power in the situation drove her forward to the point she felt quite invincible. After a period of getting no where with Sarah my partner first requested Sarah call a manager - this request was not heeded immediately until my partner forcefully demanded Sarah call the manager immediately. At no point was it Sarah's idea to look for assistance from another staff member or a manager herself. Matt, the designated Selling Coach arrived on the scene, at no point did he say he was a manager so we presume there was a manager on duty and security but neither were called in to adjudicate or investigate the situation. Matt arrived on the scene after briefly speaking to Sarah. He immediately admitted it was not necessary for my partner to identify herself but began saying how well he knew Sarah and began to make excuses for Sarah's behaviour saying she had only been with John Lewis for two weeks. We replied that we were not interested in any excuses or in his defence of Sarah's blatant abuse and inappropriate behaviour towards a client making a sizeable purchase. We both were of the opinion that Matt's communication skills and training were also not adequate for the situation. It took a very long time to convince him that Sarah's behaviour was disgraceful, manipulative, sexist, ageist and wholly inappropriate. He kept saying how well he knew Sarah and we kept telling him we had no interest in his relationship with her but only in her inappropriate behaviour towards my partner. Eventually Matt took my partner and myself to a desk in the store where someone else supposedly logged our complaint. We were not given a complaint reference number but were told someone would phone me about the complaint in due course. Matt did in the end offer us free coffee and cake and arranged this in person. On Sunday Morning I received a call on my mobile from Danielle. When Danielle first came on the phone I warned her I was not discussing anything except my complaint about my partners deplorable and inappropriate treatment as a reward for spending £1599.00 in John Lewis. After a very long conversation on the phone with Danielle she agreed Sarah had treated my partner badly and her demand for identification was inappropriate for a client purchasing an item in store. She started out by saying she would see what she could do to change the way customers are dealt with in store and I made a recommendation John Lewis should have runners at the tills to collect items from the secure area so that the till operator never loses sight of the person who has paid and the person making the purchase never loses sight of the person taking their payment and serving them. The client should stand at the till until the goods arrive and that the details of the goods checked against the documents and payment. The goods should be handed directly to the client exactly as it is for smaller purchases. There should never be a third party involved in the payments and handing over of the goods to the client. The present method is unnecessary, clumsy and fraught with anxiety for the client. There us no reason to punish clients purchasing large ticket items and its very distasteful to expect that client to then queue and have the uncertainty that comes with third party involvement and interference in the sale and hand iver if goods. All clients and customers deserve seamless and efficient service - not to be ridiculed, embarrassed, intimidated or subjected to harassment and made up rules by John Lewis's poorly trained staff members who barely understand the processes they are dealing with. Staff should not be let lose on the public until they fully understand their role in the work place, their rights and obligations within the contract of sale and the customers rights. I told both Matt and Danielle that we want to have feedback from this complaint and if we believe changes to address the problems with making large in store purchases are not suitably re-dressed we could not come back to shop at John Lewis and risk another very unpleasant incident. Danielle was told the following is what I expect from my complaint: 1. A formal apology and a bouquet of flowers be sent to my partner as a gesture of kindness and reparation from John Lewis. 2. The method of dealing with clients buying large items or expensive items in John Lewis stores needs to be comfortable for the client - that means that the person taking the money should also hand over the goods and neither should lose sight of each other until the goods are handed over and the contract to buy and supply is completed satisfactorily. 3. Staff training needs to be addressed and where a staff member is not sure of something instead of making a fuss, insulting clients and demanding identification they have no legal right to from members of the public. The matter if taking a clients money, any amount but in particular a large sum could have been reported to the police as theft. 4. That Danielle change her language to positively engage with us not in a wishy-washy verbal style of "I'll see what I can do" but to a more confident and positive verbal style "I am going to make changes" "I agree the behaviour is not acceptable" instead of saying "My partner is new and unexperienced, so we make allowances and excuses." Clients have no interest in John Lewis's internal politics and workings, when they are aggrieved concentrate on the grievance and cut of making stupid remarks that are meaningless and unproductive. Clients want action - not excuses. My partner and myself are not interested in excuses, only in positive outcomes and the assurance that neither of us will have a bad experience in John Lewis again. Danielle took my partners name and home address, lets see what comes of my complaint and the outcomes requested. Would we shop at John Lewis? No, unless the result of this complaint assures us that measures are in place for a seamless transaction for all our shopping needs big and small. Quite honestly, we would find it easier and more pleasant to purchase from another store or online in future. There is no official mechanism (identity documents) in UK law for members of the public to identify themselves so demanding identification at any stage during the sale of goods in-store is ridiculous and pointless. There is no law in the UK suggesting that clients making an in-store purchase for household or other goods are obliged to identify themselves at any time before, during or after a sale.