To want to know why Tesco won't sell me alcohol when I'm with my teenage daughter

[MrsSchadenfreude]

Given that it is perfectly legal for me to give her a glass of wine to drink at home (and has been since she was 5)? Was told in Tesco today that I couldn't buy wine as DD1 was with me. DD1 is 19 but had no ID on her, as we had just nipped out for a few bits. Cashier finally called a manager, who gave me the Spanish Inquisition, and finally said "OK, I trust that you aren't going to give any to your daughter."

It's not like I was buying WKD - I had a bottle of Champagne and one of an expensive Bordeaux!

Not prosecuted no, but you can be disciplined by the store and then ultimately dismissed if you fail "think25" policy too many times.

Stores are so worried about under age sales that they have introduced think 25. The problem is that now staff are looking at customers and wondering if they are over 25, erring on the side of caution and IDing someone clearly over 18 but potentially under 25.

The proxy sale situation means that staff are cautious about over 18s accompanied by possibly under 18s and fear being prosecuted for making a proxy sale.

The reality may well be, as pp on here suggest, unlikely that they will be prosecuted but the in house training sends a different message. Staff are in fear of losing their jobs and so many are being over zealous.

Staff are given little or no autonomy in these stores. They aren't allowed to make decisions about anything and are forced to follow policy even if that policy is at times ridiculous. It's not the fault of the shop assistant though is it? It's the fault of the rule makers.

The problem is that now staff are looking at customers and wondering if they are over 25, erring on the side of caution and IDing someone clearly over 18 but potentially under 25.

It's not erring on the side of caution, it's following company policy.

In Scotland, it's the law that anyone who looks under 25 has to show ID to buy alcohol and other age-restricted items eg fireworks.

Stores are so worried about under age sales that they have introduced think 25

No, it's not the stores. It's a mandatory license requirement to have one of these policies.
www.gov.uk/guidance/alcohol-licensing#mandatory-licensing-conditions

We had this, DP and I popped in briefly to buy a couple of bottles on the way to a friend. Both in our thirties, but I wasn't allowed to buy it because DP (who is 4 years older than me) didn't have ID. I understand they need to be cautious, but it's been years since either of us have been ID'd anywhere else so it did seem a bit much.

Beerwench
As per the link from your own link, page 8
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/350507/2014-08-29_MC_Guidance_v1_0.pdf
Think 25 IS NOT MANDATORY

Sections 146 to 152 of the Licensing Act 2003 www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/17/part/7/crossheading/children-and-alcohol

It's an offence to sell alcohol to a child and it's an offence for a child to buy alcohol.

It's also an offence to buy alcohol 'on behalf of' a child. It's not an offence to SELL alcohol to someone who happens to have a child with them though, even if it's clear that the buyer intends to give the alcohol to the child. There just isn't anything in the law which holds the shop or the shop-worker liable under those circumstances.

Furthermore the 'on behalf of a child' is explained more fully in the explanatory notes at www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/17/notes/division/4/7/14 ' Subsection (3) makes it an offence for a person to act as an agent for a child in purchasing or attempting to purchase alcohol, for example, if a child gives money to an adult to buy alcohol in an off-licence for consumption by the child'.

It's the 'on behalf of' that's important - if I use my own money to buy beer from an off licence to give to a 17-year old son at home I've not bought it 'on behalf' of him - i.e. acting as his agent to circumvent the law.

There's a separate offence if I 'buy or attempt to buy alcohol for consumption on relevant premises by an individual aged under 18'. That covers the father buying his under-age son a drink in a pub - to drink on the premises. Note that in this case it's not termed 'on behalf of' it's termed as 'for consumption by', underlining the difference between the two scenarios.

In either case though, it's the person doing the buying who can be prosecuted, not the person doing the selling.

@Ta1kinPeace

Challenge 25 (or whatever age) in itself NOT MANDATORY
But an age verification policy IS MANDATORY
It is up to the retailer which policy they have in place, as long as they have one.

Yup, but the LAW does not stop them selling alcohol to an adult who has a teen with them.
Company policy does
and lots of company policies are very badly implemented

In either case though, it's the person doing the buying who can be prosecuted, not the person doing the selling.

Is it though? If I serve a father giving his underage son alcohol to consume on the premises, and I haven't ID'd the son, and a reasonable person could assume he was under 18 (and I'm aware of what's occurring) I would think that would leave me also open to prosecution? Because I'm serving the man in full knowledge that he's going to give his son the drink?

That's consumption ON the premises though, not in a shop.

Beer
All of the legislation has been linked.
No, it is not the sellers responsibility - despite what retailers tell their staff.
And remember, its legal for 16&17 year olds to have booze with a meal - even though many pubs refuse to do so

@talkin

Yes, I agree with poorly implemented policies. Companies have got staff too scared to serve. I agree that there's nothing anywhere that says you can't sell to an adult with a teen in tow unless you have reasonable reason to think it's for the teen.

But my point was that the age verification policies are a mandatory part of the license. The 'think' ones are the industry standard.

I still haven't seen any logical explanation as to why a person is more likely to be doing a proxy sale with the underage person in tow as opposed to the underage person being elsewhere.

*Notbad - when I was seventeen, back in the days of yore, I had people in my year try to talk me into selling alcohol. They thought they would be smart by then talking some older random into coming over to "pay", thinking they were doing me a favour.

Ah, to be young again...

Oh, and it really only came up when only one kid in the group was eighteen and the others were there to lug the crates.

If the logic of this policy is to believed, can you imagine the conversation?

17 year old: can you get me some booze from the supermarket?
Parent/random stranger/18 year old friend: Sure, but you have to come in with me.
17 year old:

Given the majority of proxy purchases wouldn't have to intended underage person with them, why don't supermarkets stop sales to people who might be supplying alcohol to people not present? What if an 18 year old with ID has a trolley full but is by themselves? Surely that's high risk for being supplied to someone aged 17? What if a 40 year old buys a nice bottle of wine and a 6 pack of WKD? Surely they could be supplying that to a teenager?

Obviously that wouldn't work because that would be bonkers, but it's equally bonkers to assume a shopper would only make a proxy purchase while blatantly showing off the teenager they plan to give it to .

That's fair logic, but it was my own experience with fellow teenagers. We didn't work with logic and being an adult doesn't necessarily mean you automatically do either.

You can easily look at the thread to see that people on both sides of the till think that the rule is hard to enforce.

The greatest fear realistically was being caught out by licencing officials. They would do the stings with the elaborate set ups. In my area, the easiest places to get alcohol were corner shops. Supermarkets would only be a draw if someone's older sibling or cousin worked behind the counter.

And it was crates of beer, two for 20 quid, that were the bevvies of choice for my peers. That and Smirnoff. WKD came later for us.

I'm 23 and my boyfriend is 27. Morrison's refused to sell my boyfriend a knife as I was with him and didn't have any ID on me and look young for my age. The worst part? We were buying a load of vegetables as well to make a pasta sauce so it was obvious what we wanted the knife for.

Brunet - I feel your pain. I was refused a bottle of vanilla essence with my baking bits because the ethanol within it flagged up the alcohol warning.

I think that current law says that individual staff members have legal responsibility for not selling alcohol to under aged people. Therefore the policy of 'does the customer look 25 or over' is prevalent.
I was in Asda last week and a woman was buying a bottle of whisky. The assistant refused to let her buy it without ID. I could see quite clearly that she was over 25 (no offence to her). Before she left I asked her how old she was: '34 today, it's my birthday' she replied. I understand that someone of 25 might look as young as 17/18. But not a person of 34!!
I asked the assistant if I would be allowed alcohol, and to my disappointment was assured that I would! Turns out I really do look 52😂.

I work in a supermarket. Although not tesco. Its presumed you could be buying it for your dd who looks under age and with no ID we cannot legally sell it to you without proof of ID as you could be buying it for her.

Why has this come back to life after 2 months?

The pre Christmas drinks will be long gone now

Tesco's ID policy annoys me. I was ID'd buying a scratch card at the customer services desk before doing my shopping (had my DD with me) and then proceeded to buy a bottle of wine and no one ID'd me 👀