AIBU to think this Supermarket is judging my parenting?

[Doingmybestmum]

AIBU? Standing in a queue in Tesco with (home from uni) DD chatting to me. I was clutching a much anticipated bottle of Pimms, with accompanying lemonade, strawberries, mint etc... goodies going through when charmless checkoutee asks for age of said 21 year old DD and ID for her or she would not be able to sell me the Pimms. I calmly explained that I (substantially over 21) am buying said alcoholic beverage with my money and a) DD is only standing next to me b) its my money c) DD is over 21 and d) what on earth... the manager was called and I was allowed to purchase. AIBU to think that this is ridiculous - I understand that adults must not buy alcohol for underage children, but if you were - would it be Pimms, and would you have the "child" standing next to you?

Kathy I think you have the patience of a saint explaining this again and again

RitchyBestingFace I've done a lot of different jobs (including retail) where the patience to explain the same simple thing again and again to customers who simple cannot grasp it was all part and parcel of the day.

Motheroffourdragons Actually sometimes staff are encouraged to do random 'spot checks' even if they have little to no reason to suspect the alcohol is going to somebody other than the person buying or even if they think the customer is over 25.

Supervisors and managers (and even higher ups such as assistant managers and even CEO's) tell them to step and spot check more even if they have no cause (usually after a sting organised by the police has gone awry and a person under 25 has not been carded and sold the alcohol). These spot checks are more commonly done on parents who have children of 16+ with them. Basically the store has the right to ask anyone for ID even if they're buying an age restricted product - even if said customer is like 90 or something.

Basically if a store is caught selling alcohol, not only does the cashier get in trouble, the store will have it's licence to sell alcohol revoked so you can see why they would encourage staff to cover their ass and in turn, the company's ass.

As I say, I know it's a pain. The person on the till doesn't want the aggro of having to ask people they're fairly sure are over 25 and fairly sure they're not going to give the alcohol to anyone with them, but big businesses like covering their rears and when they tell the staff to do something they either do it or get fired.

A lot of it comes down to the vague nature of 'reasonable measures' (i.e the law says those selling alcohol must take reasonable measures to ensure alcohol does not get sold to or on behalf of minors). If you sold alcohol to somebody who looked over 25 but they weren't, you didn't ask for ID, you'd get in trouble - a huge fine, jail, criminal record - the whole shebang. Reasonable cause only counts for if you suspect they might give it to minors/be buying it on behalf of minors.

What I've been trying to say is it's not malicious, judgmental or discriminatory and often not poor training (we were usually given a 'top up' every quarter on the think 25 policy and on the law).

Basically if a store is caught selling alcohol, not only does the cashier get in trouble, the store will have it's licence to sell alcohol revoked

When was the last time you went into a branch of Sainsbury's only to find that it had no alcohol license, owing to it having been revoked?

Revocation of a drinks license is the nuclear option, used for places which persistently and flagrantly breach the law. The claim that a single test purchase transgression will result in a license being revoked is just nonsense, and something that even the most lightly-qualified company lawyer would be able to deal with.

Nobody is penalising you for who you are bringing with you to buy alcohol - there are just certain protocols staff must follow if they have reason to believe the alcohol you are purchasing is going to go to anyone under 18.

So returning to the OP, what "reason to believe" do you think existed? Or the case of the handicapped shopper told her child couldn't help load or carry bags that contained alcohol: what "reason to believe" was generated?

In law, "reason to believe" is not just "you can construct a ludicrous hypothesis involving the Loch Ness Monster", it has to be a judgement that a reasonable person in possession of the same facts might make. So when the police are only permitted to search people on the basis of having "reason to believe" that an offence is being committed, "he might be a shape-shifting alien who is actually Lord Lucan" while, of course, in principle true doesn't pass the test.

And actually, the law isn't even "reason to believe". The law is (Licensing Act 2003, S.147(1) A person to whom subsection (2) applies commits an offence if he knowingly allows the sale of alcohol on relevant premises to an individual aged under 18.. "Knowingly allows" is a hell of a lot higher a threshold even that "reason to believe": they have to know that it is going to someone under 18.

YY Bolo. The prosecutors (trading standards or whoever) would need reasonable proof and evidence that alcohol was purchased by someone under 18 (not 21/25/47) in order to secure a conviction and possibly revoke a licence.

I would think the likes of Sainsburys etc would easily be able to find a lawyer to effectively defend them by arguing that an able bodied 15 YO boy scanning his disabled mother's wine or at 36 YO who everyone is happy she is over 18 but cannot prove she is over 25 is not reasonable evidence that the shop is selling alcohol to minors.

And can I just ask the shop assistants on this thread how they translate 'presence of underage person' into 'the alcohol is being bought for said person' when it is most likely that if someone did want to buy alcohol for a minor, they would more likely make them wait outside the shop?

You could equally accuse every person in their 30/40/50s of planning to buy alcohol for the teen DCs that a large percentage of them have but are not present at that time.

I am not criticising individual staff but store policies, that over-ride common sense.

Yes that's how supermarkets work - the checkout operator has ample time to make a full assessment of the situation using her magic age-dar and consumer intention crystal ball. And if that fails then the supermarket can just field their huge and not at all expensive legal resources into defending the TS case.

Or the cashier could just ask for ID and who the alcohol is for.

There really would have to be something to make me suspicious - eg a conversation between them at the till. I've only caught someone in this way once as mentioned upthread. But I hear Tesco is stricter. We are not told to challenge parents with teenagers unless we have a good reason to believe it's for them (see above )

Bolograph - First, please refer to my earlier post regarding how managers and supervisors recommend spot checks.

Second - 'knowingly allowing' is sort of the same as 'reason to believe'. Basically if there is any doubt, the cashier should always ask for ID. Like I said, the law states that any shop that sells alcohol must take reasonable precautions to prevent the sale of alcohol (see my earlier post for this as well).

Third - Refer to my earlier post about a) spot checks and b) the right the check anyone because it falls under 'taking reasonable precautions to prevent to sale of alcohol to those under age'.

In law, "reason to believe" is not just "you can construct a ludicrous hypothesis involving the Loch Ness Monster", it has to be a judgement that a reasonable person in possession of the same facts might make. So when the police are only permitted to search people on the basis of having "reason to believe" that an offence is being committed, "he might be a shape-shifting alien who is actually Lord Lucan" while, of course, in principle true doesn't pass the test.

You are being rather ridiculous. Do you think the cashier wants to ask you for ID for shits and giggles? If they have any doubt as to whether the alcohol is to be given to somebody underage, they need to ask for any relevant ID. Their job depends on it. That's where 'knowingly' comes in. They must be damn sure the person they let by that alcohol is over 18. The 'knowingly' is more if the person uses a very convincing fake ID. If they asked for ID and followed the policy, they will be protected. If they didn't bother, then they're open to prosecution.

OP was not a 'victim'. They were just part of necessary protocol which has been in effect for quite some time. OP might have said or done something that indicated it - even talking to the daughter about being back from Uni or talking about a party they're going to throw might make the cashier suspect the alcohol will be shared with them. Beside her daughter has been to Uni she must be used to needing ID.

Or the case of the handicapped shopper told her child couldn't help load or carry bags that contained alcohol: what "reason to believe" was generated?

As for this, I never said this was acceptable. The staff member who did this was not complying with store policy. Once you have agreed to the sale of alcohol, how they take it to their car. I did not say even once that 'reasonable belief' applied here. Even still, it is in no way applicable to OP's situation. This is something else entirely.

Cashiers are not mind readers - they do not have magical powers that tell them how old people are and exactly what a customers intent is with the alcohol, and with so much at stake, they err on the side of caution. You would too. So if that means you and everyone you are with get asked for ID, then that's what needs to happen. If you had the threat of being fired, put in prison and fined, you would too.

Revocation of a drinks license is the nuclear option, used for places which persistently and flagrantly breach the law. The claim that a single test purchase transgression will result in a license being revoked is just nonsense, and something that even the most lightly-qualified company lawyer would be able to deal with.

Do I sense an appeal to "common sense" (again) ? Being extra cautious to the point of annoying/irritating/deterring customers is guaranteed to prevent a cashier - and their employer - ending up in court (see my post previous about cashiers who have been prosecuted).

Relying on "someone on the internet says it won't happen" is less sure-fire.

Bolograph Yes it is a last resort if a supermarket is frequently letting young people buy booze but they still get fined for each incident so they obviously want to minimise this happening.

Also the staff still get punished. So really this is a moot point.

It would also be interesting, if someone had deep pockets and time on their hands, to troll supermarkets by turning up with your 18 year old daughter and purchasing a bottle of good scotch. When hassled about the possibility that you are supplying alcohol to someone who is underage, clearly and unambiguously state (with as many witnesses as possible) that you are purchasing it for yourself, not your child, so your daughter's age is irrelevant.

There's plenty of caselaw which makes their next move risky, assuming you have deep enough pockets to instruct m'learned friends or you have a friend who's a solicitor who fancies the lols. They have asked you if you intend to commit a criminal offence. You have clearly stated that no, you do not intend to commit a crime. If they proceed on the assumption that you are, in fact, lying, well, you just got the fun of suing a supermarket for slander (both the accusation that you intend to break the law, and the accusation that your statement that you were buying the alcohol for yourself was a lie).

They would need to prove (to a civil burden of proof) that you were planning to break the law. But they can't, because your daughter is eighteen, so there was no crime available to you to commit. They've got other defences, but they're not terribly appetising ones.

They'd settle, obviously. If they were smart, they'd pay a couple of hundred quid into court, offer to pay your costs to date and dare you to refuse it: if you continued and didn't win at least that sum (and you won't, because the harm is pretty trivial) you'd be liable for all their costs as well as your own.

The lols and two hundred quid aren't worth getting banned from every supermarket in the land, so in practice this is just an idle idea. But it would be fun...

Your definition of interesting is a lot different from mine.

If they have any doubt as to whether the alcohol is to be given to somebody underage, they need to ask for any relevant ID.

No, the threshold for "knowingly" is a lot higher "in no doubt that you are not". And the verification requirement is pretty loose.

They aren't, for example, expected to undertake a detailed examination of the ID that's presented to them. Employers, by contrast, are and an employer is given extensive guidance on how to examine such documents. Checkout operators aren't even fully trained in the Level 1 features of driving licenses (surely the most common proofs of age), never mind the more exotic features.

But surely the point is that OP was buying the alcohol, but ID was requested of her DD, who was simply with her. My DD, 6 and DS, 17, are often with me when I am buying wine. Clearly, I would not have the correct ID for them. Could they refuse to sell it to me? I certainly hope not!

Or the cashier could just ask for ID and who the alcohol is for.

Here's my driving license, the booze is for me, of course my fifteen year old cannot prove they are over eighteen, as they are fifteen. Please give me my booze.

Now, could the people defending supermarkets in that situation please make their mind up about what they think their own policy actually is? We now have gandalf saying "We are not told to challenge parents with teenagers unless we have a good reason to believe it's for them (see above )". Which is the legal position, thank the lord, and "have good reason" is again a high threshold.

Bolograph

I don't think the law works like that. And judges aren't known for their patience with people using the courts to make a point. Something feuding neighbours (with deep pockets) have found. Very much to their cost.

I'll tell you my funniest. Went to a supermarket with my ex, we were both around 26. We browsed for a while and selected a few items including some beer. He then went back to the car and I queued up to pay. The lady asked me for ID and then said......'I need to see the ID of the man you were with' WTF I called him, he has none so no booze for us. Bear in mind, this wasn't a corner shop, it was a massive out of town supermarket, packed on a Saturday. How she spotted me buying for my 'underage' boyfriend I'll never know.

I called him, he has none so no booze for us.

Thank God that in the ceaseless battle against immorality, this victory at least was won.

You could equally accuse every person in their 30/40/50s of planning to buy alcohol for the teen DCs that a large percentage of them have but are not present at that time.

Indeed, you could simply accuse every adult who is buying booze of doing s on behalf of a teenager somewhere in the country. How do you prove a negative?

That's the problem with puritanism: nothing is ever pure enough. All over the country, children are necking down vanilla essence and liquor chocolates. Didn't we have some nonsense a few months ago about Thornton's refusing to sell rum'n'raisin ice cream to someone who had a child with them? Good thing Thornton's could afford to turn away business and piss off customers? Oh, wait.

I once got refused a bottle of wine in tesco when doing a midweek shop because I had DS in the pram. He was 3 months at the time and she said she couldn't be sure I wasn't buying it for him. I said that he prefers white not red but she didn't see the funny side. I complained to customer services and got the wine for free as a goodwill gesture.

I work for Sainsbury's and our policy is that you only need to ID the person that is buying the alcohol. So the person that is actually handing the money over. The only time we can refuse is if we have actually heard with our own ears that they are buying it for an underage person. So if you've heard them taking outside or in the store or seen them handing the money over.
Other supermarkets obviously have their own policies but to be fair to the cashier, I would rather ask someone for ID and piss them off, rather than lose my job and potentially have to pay a fine.

I complained to customer services and got the wine for free as a goodwill gesture.

Sounds like a scheme: always take a baby with you when shopping, get your booze free.

I would rather ask someone for ID and piss them off, rather than lose my job and potentially have to pay a fine.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that demanding ID from people to buy age-related goods is a bad thing. It's the crazy made-up elaboration of the law which is frustrating.