Judged by Waitrose

[Prioryfodder]

Waitrose would not let me buy alcohol because I was accompanied by my 15-year-old daughter. To explain, just before Christmas, I had bought a basket of groceries and two bottles of Malibu (actually destined for her older brothers Christmas stockings to make long island iced teas, but that's irrelevant IMO). She had briefly handled the bottles to put on the conveyor belt for me. We then waited some time for the cashier to clear. We were clearly together and frankly we are clearly mother and daughter. The cashier (rather smugly) said she would need ID from both of us to sell me the alcohol. I said I was 56 and she 15, but the alcohol was for me. She - and later her manager - asserted that we both had to be over 18, and to prove it. I asked if they would sell it to me if she left the shop. No. Would they sell it to me if she were 6-year-old? Yes, and I was ''not to be so silly'', said the cashier. My daughter feels she was judged as being an underaged drinker, and I feel judged to be a 'bad mother'. Vote: Yes, you are AIBU, you should never shop with your teenage child, you fool. YANBU, FFS at 56 you should be allowed to buy alcohol.
I am expecting a few cracks about buying Malibu and shopping at Waitrose. Please don't disappoint

Exactly this.

Did you explain to the cashier that you make Long Island iced tea with Malibu?
I'm fairly sure Waitrose would judge you for that - maybe even blacklist you.
Standards innit.

Yes! I work in a supermarket and it is the person paying who you must ask for ID if they look under 25
If you have clear ( and it has to be 100%) proof that the child has given the adult money and asked them to buy alcohol or cigarettes then you have to refuse the sale ( this is called a proxy sale)

Would make a formal complaint. Mainly because the cashier was being rude.

“Silly” I’d have TTFO.

Shop elsewhere. Waitrose is expensive anyways. I would never have thought I’d need to take ID because I was shopping with my child.

Well you can definitely spot all the folk who haven't worked in retail on here, at the end of the day the cashier is just doing their job and it's not worth them getting fined or potentially losing their job over your need to have alcohol or scratchcards. Also just so you know, if you behave like a Karen about it, you will be mocked as soon as you leave the store.

And on a side note what savage puts Malibu in a long island iced tea?

There's no Malibu in a Long Island Iced Tea...

This rule caught me off guard when I was last in London - tried to buy a couple of g&t tins and when the cashier came to check my ID, she gestured to my 7 year old and said “and his?”. I said he’s SEVEN, and then the supervisor came over to tell me that they had a right to refuse service if they suspected under 18s of consuming alcohol. Absolute jobsworths, ended up leaving everything there and going to Tesco. Email to the store didn’t get a reply.

@ExasperatedbyJanuary there’s no complication. At all. The law is it’s illegal to sell it. Thus it’s obvious if you believe they’re under you ID. Because you cannot know.

I had this in lidl last year when I was visiting the uk

Stupid rule

All these threads ever do is show the entitled attitude so many people have when it comes to alcohol - I mean it's hardly a life changing, traumatic experience to not get your booze one day is it? Though you'd think it was the way people overreact and behave, and that though people are convinced that they are an expert in licencing, they know precisely fuck all.

You have to have an alcohol license to sell alcohol.
You have to adhere to the conditions of the licence to keep it.
Breaking the conditions can lead to fines and sanctions on the licence, or losing it.
The law doesn't have to be broken to break the licence conditions, have fines and sanctions imposed.
The conditions are created to ensure that the retailer is a responsible retailer of alcohol, and if they are not adhered to (even if the law isn't broken) then the licence can have sanctions added, fines issued or the licence removed (once again for those at the back with their heads up their arse) EVEN IF THE LAW ISN'T BROKEN.

The conclusion I come to every time I ask for ID and get a lecture (it's very easy to be all high and mighty over getting your alcohol when you're not the one facing any concequences isn't it?) Or read one of these threads is that the real problem is people can't stand being told no by someone in a service job, but as the concequences are all loaded onto the person selling it and holding the licence, that's not going to change any time soon - that's the reason that people selling alcohol are careful, not some conspiracy against customers where cashiers are trying to take over the world one refused sale at a time, or because you're so mightily important that someone who's never met you wants to piss you off for whatever reason dreamed up today. Dumping your shopping and stropping at the cashier isn't going to change anything, it's not going to suddenly make them willing to risk the concequences they could face, because they're more concerned about those concequences than they are about putting your shopping back or listening to your entitled rant about customer service and jobsworths.
The licencing team from the council and the police are the ones who grant and control the alcohol licence, and they couldn't give a stuff about customer service, they really don't care, so telling them you were trying to give good customer service or that you don't like being called a jobsworth when explaining yourself having broken licence condition won't wash.

What's even more galling is they send people in with the intention of catching you out.
Why the fuck should I be punished for the potential for someone else misusing alcohol? Why should I potentially get a fine or lose my job for breaking company policy and licencing conditions? - again - that you can break without breaking the law - but the fact is that I can be, give me one good reason why I should risk that so someone else can have a bottle of Malibu? Are they going to die without said Malibu? Are they going to be traumatised without having said Malibu? Is it going to be life changing to not get the Malibu? No, it's really not.

Could be life-changing for me though, to sell it (and yet again because people really don't get this bit - even if I haven't broken the law) because I could be breaking company policy or licencing conditions and face the concequences of that which can include losing my job, but some people are so entitled that they genuinely believe I should risk that so they can have a bottle of booze because.......customer service.

Mallyboo! Best comment everrrr! 🤣

What?!
What I was saying is that there is no earthly way that a cashier could be blamed for failing to ask for the ID of a person who obviously looks over 18. There is no way that anyone could say ‘you should have ID’d them because they look under 18 to me’ - and yet that is precisely what some of these policies are suggesting. All the cashier needs to say is ‘I did not think they looked underage’. And there will be no issue - especially since half the people being ID’d are about 45.

You’ve got a lot to say about this, but have you read any of the explanations about why the rules are not only senseless but also utterly ineffective?

Doesn’t it bother you that you have to upload rules that are utter bullshit? It’s one thing to say ‘sorry, I have to do this’ but it’s another to actually defend meaningless rules.

And, as I and a number of pp have argued (some of whom do work in retail) the cashier really, really didn’t need to do it in this scenario!

The training you get in supermarkets puts the absolute fear of god into cashiers about being done for supplying under age. The people doing this don't always make sure the (now borderline paranoid) cashiers also understand when it's ok to apply common sense.

This is why you can get cashiers who would have no problem with this and cashiers who would shit a brick over it working in the same building.

The other thing you need to teach cashiers is to never ever back down on your decision. This is for very good reasons. A young cashier faced with an angry customer who's been trained that they can use their judgement and discretion will be under constant psychological pressure to change their mind, be talked round and cave.

You really need that immutable line in the sand that says "once I've said no, only sight of government approved ID can change that no to a yes, even once they've pulled their mask down and I've recognised them as my great-gran" because 99% of the time that's the approach that will keep you safe from prosecution, dismissal and assault, even though 1% of the time it results in grossly foolish outcomes.

I don't defend the rules, because they are as I've said in a pp, contradictory, I personally don't think they're worth the paper they're written on or have any effect on the culture of underage drinking or drinking to excess and then doing stupid things, but that is not a defence if I break policies, licence conditions or the law and I'm sick of people who don't even do the slightest research around it making it sound like there's some sort of conspiracy among those selling alcohol to prevent a random person getting some booze. And of the overreacting and frothing over something that isn't essential, like I've said is it a traumatic and life changing experience to not get hold of some booze today? I mean accusing people of being 'power hungry' like cashier's are trying to take over the world one refused sale at a time. 🙄

I know the rules are crap - I'm one of the people facing the concequences if they're broken, so believe me I know how useless and crap they are because I get the blame for them on the regular. What difference does it actually make if it bothers me or not? In reality? What actual difference does that make? Because it can't be any defence if I'm caught flouting them and people simply aren't interested in my take on why I have to ID or refuse a sale, they're just annoyed that I have and want to take it out on me because I'm the one doing it. It doesn't matter what I think from either side.

I've had my wrists slapped before over breaking a licencing condition - luckily first 'offence' so just a talking to, and no laws were broken, and I also get the shit from customers when I am careful and apply the conditions or policies, so why shouldn't I have a lot to say? Why is it an issue that I have anything to say? Because I'm not joining in with the frothing about the utter injustice and life changing experience that is...... Being refused the sale of a legally controlled product?

@Maverickess
I see where you’re coming from. But the reason I picked up on your post was that you didn’t seem to have read much of the discussion that went before - eg retail workers saying that in this situation the cashier didn’t need to do this.

Would you really ID in that situation, where a young woman with her mother briefly touched a bottle but didn’t try to pay for it or discuss anything about it being for her? Other retail workers have said the cashier was in the wrong.

@ExasperatedbyJanuary only they could be. If the person is under 18. I thought they looked older isn’t a defence. Therefore if they believe it they should ask.

🤷‍♀️I don’t think you’re following what I’m saying.

No one can claim anything about what the cashier does or doesn’t believe or suspect

If the policy (NB policy, not law) is to ask for ID based on what you believe or suspect then it’s a totally unenforceable policy. Because only the cashier knows what they believe or suspect.

@ExasperatedbyJanuary and you’re not getting what I’m saying.

If you believe it why take the risk? Because if you believe they’re under age and they are you’re stuffed.

Ok I think we’re talking about quite different scenarios. I’m talking specifically about when the customer IS of legal age, and has a credit card and two kids etc. They could actually be 25, say. And the stupid policy is to to ask for ID if they look under 25. Now, the cashier might wonder in this scenario- do I need to ask? I know they’re old enough to buy alcohol as the legal age is 18. I can’t really be arsed to ask them for ID therefore. Then Mr Jobsworth comes along and asks ‘why didn’t you ID?’ Cashier has not broken any rules as she hasn’t sold to an under-18, but some people are so wedded to this ‘Think 25’ bullshit that they think she HAS broken a law and to some people the customer might look under 25. What I’m saying is that the cashier can say ‘I didn’t suspect she was under 25.’ Who can tell her otherwise? No crime took place.

That was the point I was making; the policy hangs on another person’s private thoughts.

@ExasperatedbyJanuary

I honestly don't know if I would have, but the girl handling the bottles would increase the likelihood of me doing so, and more so if I've been pulled about something similar before (as I have) and/or the teams that monitor this type of thing are on the prowl (word gets around and you may know you're 'due' for someone to come in be that undercover or an official visit to check ID books and your policies and staff understanding - as I've said before, the licencing team and police aren't interested in common sense or customer service). So I may well have done, because if there was someone there with a vested interest, if the OP and her DD were in fact undercover or there was just a busy body who decided to complain to the council or police, I can still get into trouble for allowing the sale - because the responsibility is on me.

Ok I think we’re talking about quite different scenarios. I’m talking specifically about when the customer IS of legal age, and has a credit card and two kids etc. They could actually be 25, say. And the stupid policy is to to ask for ID if they look under 25. Now, the cashier might wonder in this scenario- do I need to ask? I know they’re old enough to buy alcohol as the legal age is 18. I can’t really be arsed to ask them for ID therefore. Then Mr Jobsworth comes along and asks ‘why didn’t you ID?’ Cashier has not broken any rules as she hasn’t sold to an under-18, but some people are so wedded to this ‘Think 25’ bullshit that they think she HAS broken a law and to some people the customer might look under 25. What I’m saying is that the cashier can say ‘I didn’t suspect she was under 25.’ Who can tell her otherwise? No crime took place.

That was the point I was making; the policy hangs on another person’s private thoughts.

I know this comment wasn't aimed at me, but as I've said in previous posts (because I have read and contributed to the thread already) but a challenge policy is a mandatory condition of having an alcohol licence. I've already posted the relevant part from the licencing act 2003.
Not only must you have it, but you must also prove you're using it, by well, using it and having proof. While it isn't law, it is a mandatory requirement of the licence that allows the sale of alcohol in the first place and failure to adhere to the conditions can lead to fines for the DPS, sanctions imposed on the licence, certain people not being allowed to do alcohol sales and ultimately, loss of the licence.
Challenge 21 and 25 are industry best practice, alcohol licences cost money and they also make money, of course companies are going to protect them by keeping the licencing team and police (who grant and control the licence) happy and not risk it.

This is what people don't understand, think about or research before talking about people being 'wedded to bullshit policies' is it bullshit? Yes, I'm in total agreement, is that a defence against breaking the conditions of the licence and then fines or sanctions being imposed? No.

And no, the police or licencing officer can't tell you what you thought, they can tell you that you got it wrong though and that you have broken the terms of the licence and impose sanctions or punishment in line with that. Even if the law hasn't been broken.

You can break the terms of the alcohol licence without breaking the law, and that's where the issue lies.

I had this in Tesco years ago(13 yrs ago).
DD was with me and after a large shop we went to the alcohol aisle. I put a bottle of wine in and DD after I had tried put 2x4 of those fruit ones like J2O but with small amount of alcohol. I had my wrist in a splint and so asked her to get them down. Bought some lemonade and some cider which I put in then went to check out. Shopping going through when this bumptious woman appeared and told me and the cashier that I couldn't buy the alcohol as DD was under age.
I looked at her and said she is 18 tomorrow and these are for a small party. All her friends are already 18 as she was a summer birthday. She wanted ID. Well I had mine but DD was in the 6th form and didn't have any. I tried again to explain that the only reason that she had put it in the trolley was because I couldn't physically do it. She said I should have called an assistant. I explained again they were for her party as her last exams were on her birthday and a few friends were coming to our house, that we lived out of town and that I wouldn't have another opportunity to get it. Nope I wasn't allowed anything except the bottle of wine which she had seen me choosing(reading the bleugh). I left the wine and wouldn't really have liked to have walked away without any of it but I was at work the next day so didn't have time plus DD had chosen a lot of the food. Vegetarian and vegan mostly.Snacks etc
This woman sits watching the alcohol aisles as her job apparently. DD was quite upset as with exam stress, her gran had just died and she had never had a party since she was about 10 and I had let her chose everything. It spoilt what had been a relaxing, fun shopping trip.

We went to the Co Op on the way home.

I can understand to a point but it was obvious party stuff 18 banner, cups, balloons etc and it was 8 alcohpops and two bottles of cider ( boyfriend and his and her friends) non of them drink much and they certainly weren't going to get drunk on that. Common sense didn't prevail at Tesco and I was so annoyed I stopped shopping there.

On another note we were going out with work and one of my colleagues got stopped and asked for ID by a doorman. Luckily I knew the Doorman as he worked for my son and so I shouted to him "Let him in, he's 28! " He did look young for his age but not under 18. Doorman couldn't believe it when I got closer and asked if I was sure. I said "Yep, I work with him. He is a teacher." Doorman was flabbergasted. It was a standing joke for quite a while...You sure you're old enough to take the kids on a trip?

@ExasperatedbyJanuary no one is saying it is the law but it is a policy in many places. And therefore they have to do it.

@Maverickess
I appreciate you engaging on this, but I’m still puzzled by this:

they can tell you that you got it wrong though and that you have broken the terms of the licence and impose sanctions or punishment in line with that. Even if the law hasn't been broken.

What will they be telling you that you got ‘wrong’ in the above scenario? It can’t be that you got it wrong by selling to an under-18 because that would involve the law being broken. So are they telling you you’re wrong for not IDing? But you only have to ID if you think they’re under 25. You don’t! So what have you done ‘wrong’?

I’m not having a go at you over this. I just can’t seem to get across that there can’t reasonably be a policy that you can transgress with catastrophic consequences when it’s literally impossible to define the terms of the policy since they hang on different people’s opinions.