Talk

Advanced search

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

Can a company legally enforce no food other than purchased at venue can be consumed?

(14 Posts)
firedengines Tue 04-Feb-14 11:16:44

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AnneEyhtMeyer Tue 04-Feb-14 11:18:20

Why couldn't they purchase sugary drinks in the venue?

merrymouse Tue 04-Feb-14 11:21:05

The drinks you might need to consume in case of emergency might not be the same you would want to consume just to accompany your lunch.

firedengines Tue 04-Feb-14 11:27:19

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DameDeepRedBetty Tue 04-Feb-14 11:29:45

I wouldn't be surprised if management have fallen foul of disability access legislation.

Will watch with interest.

firedengines Tue 04-Feb-14 11:30:21

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AnneEyhtMeyer Tue 04-Feb-14 11:46:24

True on the sugar-free stuff, I suppose, but I've never been in a children's venue with a lack of chocolate, sweets etc. And in case of emergency surely sugar and water would be sufficient? Surely that would prevent any claim of going against disability access?

I don't think they shouldn't be allowed to take things in for emergencies, they should of course be able to. However I bet they get a lot of people eating and drinking their own stuff which threatens their livelihood, so you can understand their point of view.

firedengines Tue 04-Feb-14 12:07:02

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

OvertiredandConfused Tue 04-Feb-14 12:20:04

I'd write to the manager asking them to clarify whether they allow emergency supplies or not. If they do, you have it in writing for next time. If they don't - after you've explained the background and reasons - you have a great story, with evidence, for the local paper

hiddenhome Tue 04-Feb-14 13:24:30

They need to be better prepared tbh.

Sachets of sugar can be added to water and those little sealed containers of jam would do as well.

Vatta Tue 04-Feb-14 13:38:37

Yes, they can insist on this. As property owners, they're only giving their customers a license to be on the property, and they can impose conditions on the terms of that licence. A condition that you can only eat good you've bought there is very common, and enforceable.

A disability discrimination claim would be interesting - the business only has to make "reasonable adjustments" for disability, and I wouldn't expect a court to think its reasonable that a business should have to allow people to use their facilities while eating their own food, as this would impact on the profits (and whatever you think of the admission charges, a lot of these places only profit from the sales of foods, even cinema chains are mostly only profitable from selling food and drink).

In terms if customer relations, I do think it's fairly stupid/ short-sighted to refuse to allow the emergency supplies in this case, but from a legal perspective I think the business can do this. Your best bet if unhappy about this would be to focus on customer goodwill, rather than suggesting any legal aspect (which would probably just make them defensive).

firedengines Tue 04-Feb-14 13:47:00

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Alanna1 Tue 04-Feb-14 13:50:15

I'm not sure Vatta is right for people who have a disability and could require particular food immediately. It (isn't) apparently for consumption that day but for emergencies. It isn't different from an insulin pen or being prescribed sugar syrup. I can equally understand why the centre would be suspicious. I imagine a letter from the GP saying "X has a disability and is required to always have X with them for emergencies" should help the management see sense? I have had an issue about cool boiled water for my 10 month old baby and bringing in water, but they backed down when I pointed out the coffee and snacks that had been purchased and got a bit annoyed about the whole not having been boiled lots/needs to be boiled then cooled etc.

onepieceoflollipop Tue 04-Feb-14 13:52:38

I think the sugary drinks would be better described as medication, which the company could not then reasonably refuse. in the situation described, the drinks (or an equivalent). are essential as medication.
for people suggesting the family could use sugar or jam or whatever, the company may have issue with this too as it is technically food.

for me, there are too many risks associated with relying on buying emergency items at the venue. There may be a queue, and staff or other customers may not realise the urgency and the parents could be prevented from queue jumping. also once being served, there could be a delay in buying an appropriate item, especially if there are a lot of sugar free drinks on sale.

realistic compromise would seem to be what happened tbf. I.e. The family agree to buy lunch/drinks etc at the venue. they bring emergency medically supplies separately.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now