A Lidl security guard has been caught on camera attempting to remove a blind man and his guide dog from a London store, insisting the animal was “not allowed” — despite guide dogs having full legal protection to access all public premises under UK law.
The approximately 40-second clip, posted on X by @OliLondonTV and filmed around three weeks ago, shows a guard in a high-visibility vest repeatedly telling the blind customer and his guide dog to leave the store. “Dog is not allowed,” the guard tells the man, who responds: “But it’s a guide dog.” The guard then says “I’ve not seen you before, please out,” and gestures for the pair to leave — continuing to press the matter even after being informed the man is blind and the dog is a legally recognised assistance animal. A woman accompanying the blind man can be heard saying she had only come in for milk. No other Lidl staff intervene during the footage.
A sign visible in the store window explicitly carves out an exception for assistance dogs from any general no-dogs policy — making the guard’s actions not only unlawful but directly contradicted by the store’s own signage.
Under the Equality Act 2010, assistance dogs — including guide dogs — have an unrestricted legal right to access all public places and commercial premises. Refusing entry or service to a disabled person accompanied by a guide dog constitutes unlawful discrimination, regardless of any store policy on pets. Security Industry Authority-licensed guards are expected to receive training on disability awareness and equality legislation as part of their professional certification.
The footage has drawn widespread outrage online, with viewers calling for the guard to face disciplinary action or dismissal and demanding Lidl issue a public apology and compensation to the customer. The blind man is understood to have followed up with Lidl’s customer services team following the incident.
It is not the first time the chain has faced scrutiny over guide dog access. A separate incident in 2024 resulted in a blind shopper taking Lidl to court after a similar refusal of entry, raising questions about whether the retailer’s training for security staff — many of whom are employed by third-party contractors — is sufficient to prevent repeat occurrences.
Lidl GB was approached for comment.
