Parent accompanied by teenager refused sale of alcohol in off-licence

[geoffk]

The person in front of me in the queue, who was accompanied by his teenage (underage) daughter has just been refused alcohol by the sales assistant, who told him it was against the law as he could be buying it for her. I've never seen this happen before but have read about it happening in a supermarket.

Was the sales assistant correct or was she just being a jobsworth? All I can find on line is that some supermarkets have this as a policy, just as they often ask you to produce ID if you LOOK under 21, or even 25, but it's not illegal. Many shoppers will have children at home when they buy booze. When I was being served I told the young woman I had a 10 year old grand-daughter but she didn't take the bait. She said even if this guy came back on his own she wouldn't serve him!

Any lawyers out there?

 

[Ianno87]

Not a lawyer here.

Presumably a shop can refuse to sell anything to anyone, provided it is not discriminating against a protected characteristic.

So the shop is perfectly within the law to refuse to sell something in the cicumstances you describe - it's their business decision not to, to guard against a possible law breach in selling alcohol to be consumed by an under-age person.

 

[DB]

Not a lawyer either - I have seen it happen though (bloke wanting to buy a bottle of wine, who just happened to have his teeange son with him), and it is jobsworth behaviour. The law is intended to allow them to refuse selling alcohol to someone who is obviously buying it for someone else underage. So far as I know it is within the letter of the law to do what you describe as they don't have to explain why they thought the booze was being bought for the kid, but it's ridiculous and a good way to alienate customers.

 

[Kite159]

I've heard stories of people getting refused the sale of alcohol because they had a baby with them.

Sometimes it's just someone being a jobsworth

 

[typefish]

They're jobsworths scared of getting fired, which I guess is fair enough

I once drove to a shop, forgot my ID and despite me showing my 26-30 rail card on my phone, a thing that is verified with your driving licence and pointing to my car, with me opening the boot to show it was my car, I was still rejected from buying a bottle of red wine.

Gah.

 

[johntea]

Rather pointless though as they'll just go to another shop and probably get served no problems!

 

[Ianno87]

They're jobsworths scared of getting fired, which I guess is fair enough

I once drove to a shop, forgot my ID and despite me showing my 26-30 rail card on my phone, a thing that is verified with your driving licence and pointing to my car, with me opening the boot to show it was my car, I was still rejected from buying a bottle of red wine.

Gah.

If it's a small shop, it could cause a loss of licence if found to have sold inder-age. So can't necessarily blame them for being cautious.

 

[ComUtoR]

Buying alcohol | Drinkaware

The laws on buying and selling alcohol and acceptable forms of ID.

www.drinkaware.co.uk

Retailers can reserve the right to:​

• Refuse the sale of alcohol to an adult if they’re accompanied by a child and think the alcohol is being bought for the child.

Completely legit and welcomed. Good to see people doing the right thing.

 

[DB]

Completely legit and welcomed. Good to see people doing the right thing.

It's only 'the right thing' if there is a genuine reason. While it's within the law to refuse it to anybody accompanied by a kid, it's rather ridiculous where it's clearly a parent who just happens to have their child with them. Refusing them for that alone when there's no indication that it is for the child is jobsworthery.

 

[Ianno87]

It's only 'the right thing' if there is a genuine reason. While it's within the law to refuse it to anybody accompanied by a kid, it's rather ridiculous where it's clearly a parent who just happens to have their child with them. Refusing them for that alone when there's no indication that it is for the child is jobsworthery.

"Clearly" is somewhat subjective.

At the risk of loss of licence, better to err on the side of caution where there is doubt.

Clearly you have never been on the other side of the till yourself.

 

[DB]

"Clearly" is somewhat subjective.

At the risk of loss of licence, better to err on the side of caution where there is doubt.

Clearly you have never been on the other side of the till yourself.

Yes, there is caution, but when I've seen it, it was a respectable-looking middle-aged bloke in a suit, who just happened to have his son with him.

If we take your 'side of caution' to its logical conclusion that would mean that anyone buying alcohol would have to make sure that they never had their kids with them when they went to buy it, which would be rather ridiculous (and hence I've never seen it happen in supermarkets when families are doing their weekly shopping - supermarkets clearly have more sense than to push it too far).

 

[ComUtoR]

It's only 'the right thing' if there is a genuine reason. While it's within the law to refuse it to anybody accompanied by a kid, it's rather ridiculous where it's clearly a parent who just happens to have their child with them. Refusing them for that alone when there's no indication that it is for the child is jobsworthery.

Calling somone a jonbsworth it franlkly quite offensive. The law exists for a reason wether we like it or not. Someone taking responsibility to exercise that law is perfectly fine and should be lauded. Alcohol has various issues and it is the retailers social responsibility to follow the guidance and make that decision to sell or indeed not to. Its also worth noting that we are unaware of the reasons why someone gets refused. When I worked in retail we would all work together and if someone was known to the retailler then it is likely that information is passed on.

Parents buy alcohol for the children all the time. Some are responsible with it and many others aren't. If the situation was reversed and the retailler was being pulled up because they were selling alcohol to anyone and everyone then we would be condemning them. It may even be the case where the retailler has already been pulled up in the past so have decided to clamp down.

There are various agencies that set up stings on shops for underage selling. Quite rightly the retaillers have become stricter and will apply the full extent of the law.

 

[DB]

Calling somone a jonbsworth it franlkly quite offensive. The law exists for a reason wether we like it or not. Someone taking responsibility to exercise that law is perfectly fine and should be lauded. Alcohol has various issues and it is the retailers social responsibility to follow the guidance and make that decision to sell or indeed not to. Its also worth noting that we are unaware of the reasons why someone gets refused. When I worked in retail we would all work together and if someone was known to the retailler then it is likely that information is passed on.

Parents buy alcohol for the children all the time. Some are responsible with it and many others aren't. If the situation was reversed and the retailler was being pulled up because they were selling alcohol to anyone and everyone then we would be condemning them. It may even be the case where the retailler has already been pulled up in the past so have decided to clamp down.

There are various agencies that set up stings on shops for underage selling. Quite rightly the retaillers have become stricter and will apply the full extent of the law.

Sorry, I don't agree.

There has to be an element of reasonableness, and simply having a kid with them should not be enough unless there is some other reason to assume it's for the kid.

It is after all not going to deter anyone who actually is buying booze for someone underage, as they will know full well that the underage person needs to keep out of sight.

 

[ABB125]

It's happened to my dad in late February (I think): I was with him in Guildford Tesco, buying a ready meal for us (we were visiting my brother at university to watch a musical he was in the pit band for); I didn't have any form of ID with me, so the self-service person wouldn't authorise the sale of a bottle of wine. (It's worth pointing out that I don't drink, but obviously they don't know that!)
Interestingly, when we were on holiday in west Wales this summer, twice my dad bought wine (once from Pembroke Dock Tesco, the other from Saundersfoot Tesco Express), used the self-service checkouts, and we didn't even need a member of staff to verify age; the machine just accepted it!

 

[GusB]

It's not fair to call the assistant a jobsworth for doing their job. It's a judgement call. Trading standards carry out checks to see if stores are carrying out their ID checks and front line staff can be prosecuted for getting it wrong.

 

[DB]

It's not fair to call the assistant a jobsworth for doing their job. It's a judgement call. Trading standards carry out checks to see if stores are carrying out their ID checks and front line staff can be prosecuted for getting it wrong.

They can also lose customers by getting it wrong and humiliating them!

 

[telstarbox]

On balance the store would want to keep its alcohol licence even if that means losing a few customers through strict enforcement. Police / trading standards do send people in undercover so you can blame them!

 

[typefish]

If it's a small shop, it could cause a loss of licence if found to have sold inder-age. So can't necessarily blame them for being cautious.

I know, and the fine is often large too.

Hence why I suggested that whilst I was against it, I can see why this happens

 

[Butts]

I take it this nonsense is not replicated regarding the sale of cigarettes ?

 

[ComUtoR]

There has to be an element of reasonableness, and simply having a kid with them should not be enough unless there is some other reason to assume it's for the kid.

I got challenged about 20 minutes ago (popped out for my lockdown supplies). Whenever I go to John Lewis with my son, they will always ask. When I go to my local Tesco they never ask. Which retailler is being more responsible ?

It is after all not going to deter anyone who actually is buying booze for someone underage, as they will know full well that the underage person needs to keep out of sight.

It does. Challenge 21/25 has been a bit of a game changer and teenagers know which stores will challenge them and which doesn't. This limits supply. There is always going to be somewhere that serves anyone and that is directly contributing to antisocial behaviour and underage drinking. As a parent of 2 teenagers and as someone who has suffered with various alcogol related issues I fully support any retailler who acts responsibly.

When I was a young... my mates and I often got someone off the street to get a bottle of something for us. This simple challenge or refusal acts to reduce that. Again, kudos to the employee and the store.

 

[DB]

I got challenged about 20 minutes ago (popped out for my lockdown supplies). Whenever I go to John Lewis with my son, they will always ask. When I go to my local Tesco they never ask. Which retailler is being more responsible ?

Fair enough to ask, but to simply refuse to sell it, no questions asked, is not - and that's what I've seen happen.

 

[GatwickDepress]

They're jobsworths scared of getting fired, which I guess is fair enough

I once drove to a shop, forgot my ID and despite me showing my 26-30 rail card on my phone, a thing that is verified with your driving licence and pointing to my car, with me opening the boot to show it was my car, I was still rejected from buying a bottle of red wine.

Gah.

Regardless, it's not considered an acceptable proof of identity by the groups that mandate the standards that shops follow. Plus, it wouldn't be too difficult to create a digital forgery with a dummy app, while PASS cards, passports, driving licenses, and military ID cards are typically harder to forge - they all have holographic features.

It's happened to my dad in late February (I think): I was with him in Guildford Tesco, buying a ready meal for us (we were visiting my brother at university to watch a musical he was in the pit band for); I didn't have any form of ID with me, so the self-service person wouldn't authorise the sale of a bottle of wine. (It's worth pointing out that I don't drink, but obviously they don't know that!)
Interestingly, when we were on holiday in west Wales this summer, twice my dad bought wine (once from Pembroke Dock Tesco, the other from Saundersfoot Tesco Express), used the self-service checkouts, and we didn't even need a member of staff to verify age; the machine just accepted it!

All Tesco Express stores and some (probably all now, thanks to COVID-19) Superstores have the capability to authorise restricted products from the attendant's terminal, so it's likely an attendant authorised it without you noticing.

 

[mikeg]

A shop is well within their rights to refuse a suspected 'proxy sale' and that is what is often expected. Where I work, its the policy too. If you suspect its being bought on behalf of a young person where they don't have ID or their ID doesn't check out, irrespective of the age of the purchaser the sale should be refused.

Please note these words are my own and not those of my employer.

 

[DB]

A shop is well within their rights to refuse a suspected 'proxy sale' and that is what is often expected. Where I work, its the policy too. If you suspect its being bought on behalf of a young person where they don't have ID or their ID doesn't check out, irrespective of the age of the purchaser the sale should be refused.

Please note these words are my own and not those of my employer.

And is it policy to treat it as a suspected 'proxy sale' and refuse to sell it every time a parent tries to buy alcohol and happens to have their kid(s) with them?

 

[mikeg]

No, but if the cashier suspects this for whatever reason they are within their rights to refuse. I admit it can be a difficult call.

Words are my own and not those of my employer.

 

[najaB]

The law is intended to allow them to refuse selling alcohol to someone who is obviously buying it for someone else underage.

How is a shopkeeper supposed to know that the people are parent and child?

 

[DB]

How is a shopkeeper supposed to know that the people are parent and child?

Well, it's often pretty obvious...

 

[david1212]

Retailers can reserve the right to:


Refuse the sale of alcohol to an adult if they’re accompanied by a child and think the alcohol is being bought for the child.

Surely to make a decision to refuse sale there must be a reasonable reason for the text I have highlighted to apply.

Logical reasons would be seeing the child select the item(s) or hearing them say I / we want ...... implying they are for the child or a group that the child will be with.

How is a shopkeeper supposed to know that the people are parent and child?

Where in the wording is there reference to the adult being a parent ? As I read any relationship is irrelevant.

 

[najaB]

Well, it's often pretty obvious.

What is obvious to one isn't necessarily obvious to another.

Where in the wording is there reference to the adult being a parent ? As I read any relationship is irrelevant.

In the OP it's stated:

The person in front of me in the queue, who was accompanied by his teenage (underage) daughter

@DavidB implied that the law shouldn't apply where parent/child relationships are concerned, my question was how the shopkeeper is supposed to ascertain that such a relationship exists.

Surely to make a decision to refuse sale there must be a reasonable reason for the text I have highlighted to apply.

AFAIK, the law doesn't specify a test of reasonableness.

 

[SteveM70]

I’m just gutted that when I go to the self service checkout the assistant comes and presses the button that says “the customer is clearly over 25”