To be baffled by Morrison's ID policy

[Babyfacemortified]

I am really at a loss to understand what I have just experienced. Very minor in the scheme of things but I have been left with a lingering uncomfortable feeling.

I made an unplanned stop at my local Morrison's store for a bottle of wine and didn't have my purse with me, just my bank card. So I didn't have any ID with me but I am 33 years old and was dressed for work in business wear so it never crossed my mind that I would be asked for it, even with challenge 25 as I am 8 years over that but to my amazement, I was asked. In many ways, very flattering. This isn't the part that annoyed and bewildered me....

I previously worked in that store for 5 years (starting 16 years ago) and am still on good terms with many of the staff, including management. It's a small town so I still chat to my former colleagues when I see them and keep in touch on Facebook. I didn't have ID, so was refused the sale. This is fine as for whatever reason, the checkout assistant was not confident that I was old enough to buu alcohol.

I asked whether a different member of staff on another checkout could serve me as they would know for a certain fact that I am old enough but was told rhat no, that is not possible and the assistant refused to let me take the wine to another checkout or call a supervisor.

The people behind me in the queue were really nice, as they could obviously tell I am clearly well over 18 (and 25, unfortunately) but I still felt really embarrassed not to mention disappointed at having to leave the lovely Malbec I had been looking forward to!

On the way out, I spotted a supervisor I used to work with and explained the issue to her, told her I realised it was totally my own fault for not having ID but I really did fancy a glass of wine and had a friend coming the following day so could do with something in to offer, so could she aerve me on her checkout but she also refused. She said that although she knew my age, it would be against the law for her to serve me now that her colleague had questioned my age!

Surely this is madness? I absolutely respect the right of the first checkout assistant to refuse if she isn't satisfied that I am old enough, as the consequences of serving someone under 18 can be very serious, but if another checkout assistant and supervisor knew that I was in my 30s they can't be prohibited from serving alcohol can they?

Name changed as very outing.

I understand the need to ID people but some schemes are ridiculous or overly strict.

I recently bumped into my nana at Tesco whilst I was buying nappies for my son, so I buy my nappies, and wait with her whilst she pays for her three bottles of wine, having a chat etc. Btw I am 7 months pregnant, 30 years old although admittedly I do look younger (not younger than 25 though) . The check out lady then asks me for ID which I don’t have as I just ran out with cash not my purse. She then refused to serve my 70 year old nana Incase she gave me any of her wine.

Actually it is the law

I'm glad it's not just me! I went to Tescos recently and picked up a small bottle of Baby Bio. I was told they had a "challenge 25" rule and asked to see ID.. I provided my driving license and the guy who had come to the self serve checkouts had to call someone else over. Discussions ensued, eventually I was cleared for the Baby Bio purchase. I am 54 and I look it!

While it might be stupid, ultimately its the person that serves you that gets the punishment and I would go without the bottle of wine if it makes sure that the sales assistant doesn't end up in jail with a massive fine

Who was going to prison? OP is in her 30s, and legally able to buy alcohol. No one is going to be punished for selling wine to an adult.

The problem with challenge 25 is that its subjective and at the colleagues judgement

@ifyouneedmenow

That's not the way it works. I'll try another way, but all this surely demonstrates why it's so hard to get it right? The law to the public may be absolutely clear that 18 is the age you must be, but getting and keeping a licence means a few more conditions to meet than people think.
In order to sell alcohol as a premisis you must have a license granted from the liscencing team at the local council. To get granted the license you need to meet certain criteria and be approved. One of those conditions is to have an age verification policy. As challenge 21 and 25 are best practice, they are usually the ones adopted. It is up to the retailer which one they apply, but they must have one in place. Checks are made during the duration of the license to ensure that the conditions of the license are being met - the police or trading standards can do these, either undercover or announced. If conditions of the license are not met then sanctions to, or removal of the license can happen - meaning you can't sell alcohol any more - big dent in profit, not to mention the cost of the license itself in the first place. Some councils are strict, some not so, but if there's trouble around certain areas to do with alcohol then the spotlight goes into the licensed premises in those areas. So how as the license holder do you prove to the council/police that you aren't selling alcohol illegally? By having records that your staff ID people regularly, and lack of ID means lack of sale. Staff are reluctant to ID, well because of attitudes as demonstrated on this thread, because they're overruled by senior staff to stop complaints etc. So as a company they introduce policies that mean to not ID people can lead to disciplinary action, and that once a challenge has been made, it must be followed through.
The problem is that your average member of the public knows none of this, because why would they? They know the legal age to buy alcohol is 18, so they don't understand the reasons that challenge 25 is so strictly applied. So they blame shop assistants/bar staff for being jobsworths and on a power trip. Shop assistants/bar staff have it drilled into them that they must ID people, and prove it, and that they are personally, as well as the company, liable for any illegal sales. They may have had half a days training if that - indeed the course I did to enable me to apply for a personal license was only a day long - yet the repercussions of getting it wrong are huge.
All the information is in the licensing act 2003, which has a few amendments like free potable (in a glass!) Water on request or age verification policies, or not 'irresponsibly' promoting alcohol. Most people think it's just as cut and dried as if you're 18, you get served. It's not. The age group that have the most issue with it are 30/40 because they grew up with much lighter laws regarding alcohol and they don't know things have changed, everyone is an expert and as demonstrated just on this thread when you do try to explain, you're told you're lying, that you're on a power trip etc.
So while the law doesn't demand directly that you ID a 40 year old, sometimes you have to, to demonstrate that the conditions of the license are being met, to keep said license. As with most employers now too, they also undertake their own internal checks by using mystery shoppers to ensure that the law, and the policies in place are being adhered to, because it causes big issues if it's an official check that's failed.
When you consider that companies also employ mystery shoppers to ensure 'upselling' is done and concequences arise for the employee to fail meeting those targets, where it's 'only' profit at stake, when a massive profit spinner such as selling alcohol is at stake, they are even tougher with internal checks.

Who was going to prison? OP is in her 30s, and legally able to buy alcohol. No one is going to be punished for selling wine to an adult.

No but selling alcohol to a minor can incur a fine of up to £20,000 and closure of the business, test purchases are made all the time, would you risk it

The bizarre thing is, the Think25 policy is always justified because apparently there are loads of 16/17 olds out there who look 20 -24 years old yet apparently lots of 26 - 50 year olds look under 25? 🤔

Younger people look older apparently and older people over 25 look younger. So basically you could line up 50 people between the ages of 16 and 50 and according to supermarket logic they all look between the ages of 18 and 25...

Oh I feel your frustration! I was once refused a bottle of wine in morrisons (in amongst my full weeks food shop) as I had my 13 year old nephew with me. He was asked for ID and I laughed and said he's only 13. I proceeded to produce my ID (I was 23 at the time) and was still refused. The manager was called who also refused and I was furious.

but why on Earth were so many people on this thread, with no apparent agenda, so reluctant to admit that this is what's happening? Why not say it on page one? It's bizarre.

Tbf, most of the posts here are from people falling foul of the ID policies. And I have on this thread, and others tried to explain, but people have a mental block of "But the law says 18!" To actually listen to what is being said, most people on the tills also don't fully understand the laws surrounding alcohol and license conditions either - one of the reasons that you can be challenged one day and not the next - some, like me, have done the course as piss poor as it is and also done their own research, and understand the laws and conditions. Others only know that the boss said they don't ID enough people, they don't know why or the reasons behind it, but as the company is so strict and there's laws around alcohol, they assume it must be the law.

My personal view on it is that the new licensing laws in 2015 were a response to rising issues around alcohol in general, especially underage drinking. And the government needed to do something, but as with anything, they didn't want to put money into it. So they shifted the onus from the premises to the individual, they introduced fines and jail terms as punishment for individuals, all while safe in the knowledge that the public outcry at the restrictions would end up squarely on the shoulders of the person behind the till and the retailer. They have effectively made retailers and their staff responsible (punishable by law) for other people's decisions regarding alcohol.

I was once refused a bottle of wine in morrisons (in amongst my full weeks food shop) as I had my 13 year old nephew with me.

Does this mean every time someone goes shopping with their children, they can't buy alcohol in case they give it to them?

@Kedgeree

I did say about the challenge thing on page 1 - it's been totally ignored as it usually is.

Underage drinking has been going on for decades. Underage drinkers will always find a way to get hold of alcohol, despite the law.

When I was 15 back in the late 90s, we used to send in our 18 year old mates to buy the alcohol with our money. Even if they got asked ID, they had it because they were old enough.

Supermarkets constantly talk about being responsible so underage drinkers don't get their hands on alcohol by implementing strict ID checks etc. Yet supermarkets are the main culprits who attract underage drinkers to buy alcohol (by sending someone old enough in to buy it) because they sell it so cheaply.

Gosh I love in London and have never ever been ID’d as an adult. Never been to Morrison’s either though which seems like a good thing

It isn't illegal for under 18s to drink alcohol at home, anyway. An over 18 is breaking no laws by purchasing alcohol in a supermarket for consumption by someone under 18 (as long as they are over 5).

This thread has made me think I'll never attempt to buy alcohol in Morrisons because they sound ridiculous.

Does this mean every time someone goes shopping with their children, they can't buy alcohol in case they give it to them

Well it could do, but I don't understand why 'having someone underage with you' can be seen as an intention to give them alcohol, which isn't illegal in private homes anyway.

Said teen could just as easily stay at home or wait outside the shop while their parent picks up alcohol for them. Being in the shop with their parent is not an indicator that they get to drink the booze being bought and leads to ridiculous situations where sales have been refused because fit and healthy teens have helped their disabled parent scan and carry heavy items with no evidence that it is for the child.

@OP

It is madness. This country is mad. I am filled with rage reading the DM most days over maddening things.

I've id'd people in their 30s who looked 12.

Don't be silly who it there 30s looks 12 grin

Well my dentist for one! (True!)

I work in a supermarket. You can lose your job by not asking for ID, as simple as that. Cameras are on staff, managers are constantly watching, the supermarket can lose their licence to sell alcohol.
The cashier can get fined and lose job.
When store is busy it's quite difficult at times to evaluate some ones age, l have made mistakes my self, a quick.glance can be deceptive sometimes, but once y o u.have questioned the customer, you.must follow through, it's just the store policy.
I no longer work on checkouts, l couldn't stand the constant abuse.

This is my grandad 😂

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/metro.co.uk/2013/11/26/great-grandfather-92-stopped-from-buying-vodka-because-he-didnt-have-id-4202735/amp/

**ultimately its the person that serves you that gets the punishment

There's no punishment. Its not law. I understand the first cashier's reticence from a legal standpoint. However the supervisor was covering herself against store policy, not law. Surely if questioned she can point out that as a former employee, they have a record of her DOB and a photo ID as this would've been provided at point of employment. Altho she didn't have ID with her, it's still her face in their records

It's even more bizarre since it's not illegal for anyone over the age of 18 to buy anyone over the age of 16 an alcoholic drink in licensed premises when having a meal

It's not any alcoholic drink, only beer, wine or cider and again strict rules apply to the circumstances of the "meal"

It's even more bizarre since it's not illegal for anyone over the age of 18 to buy anyone over the age of 16 an alcoholic drink in licensed premises when having a meal

It's not any alcoholic drink, only beer, wine or cider and again strict rules apply to the circumstances of the "meal"

Which is another point of contention that comes up a lot because people only know the bit about the meal and being over 16, they don't know the restrictions regarding what alcohol and that it's for the duration of the meal only. So many people have argued the point that because they have a meal, the booze can keep flowing and that's not correct. Once the food is eaten, the meal is over, it then reverts back to it being illegal to serve someone under 18. And you also should ID someone to ensure they are 16 or 17 not 15, to do it in the first place - another issue. Then there's the times older siblings or friends do this without parental permission, or deliberately behind parents backs. I have been that bar server on the recieving end of a gobful from an angry parent. I did nothing wrong legally, but I still got threatened and we got reported for serving under agers, luckily I had ID'd all concerned and could prove it, so nothing could be done, but I felt like shit. So, many places decide it's too risky and implement a policy that no alcohol is served to anyone under 18 full stop.