To report an off licence?

[HotChocWine]

Long story short, off licence sold vodka to a 17 year old, that my 15 year old drank and we ended up in a and e as he was unresponsive

We have been told where it was bought, I was debating letting Trading Standards know about it

You can report the shop to trading standards. The challenge 25 policy is so common now that the 17 year old either had good fake ID or that shop is known for not checking ID.

Just to add, I’ve bought alcohol-free versions of normally alcoholic drinks loads of times which also need to be verified at a self-checkout. That also seems barmy.

Yes report to trading standards, they are so under resourced now that they can only act on intelligence so reports like this will help them to target scrupulous retailers.

This was a proxy purchase, as it's illegal to buy on behalf of someone underage.

The retailer should have used challenge 25 so shouldn't have made the sale without a legit ID.

For all the posters saying parenting is the issues here, yes there's an element of that but if your turn off the taps of supply then underage kids can't get hold of alcohol as easily. Retail does have a role.

Definitely report as they made no effort to check.

If they suspect it's a proxy purchase, which is buying for or on behalf of someone underage then it's an offence to make the sale.

So if there's a group of young teens outside possibly asking people to make the sale for them or an older teen coming into shop with a younger teen, if the retail worker has any inkling the alcohol might be for someone underage they should not make the sale.

Pubs are different as the bar staff can see who is consuming the alcohol.

I'm not sure why people assumed it was your 17 year old.

Yes, I understand that. That’s how it’s always worked. But the shop has to have some reason to believe it’s a proxy sale. The issue was shops not selling to adults simply because they’re with a teen.

As for pubs and restaurants, I suspect the answer is simply that no-one would put up with it, not that the staff can supervise who’s drinking.

Holding the shop responsible does not prevent you from holding your child to account. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

Some posters on here are nuts and just like to stick the boot in. “Shit parenting?” Do me a favour. A 15 year old made an error of judgment. They do that sometimes, even the ones with ‘perfect’ parents. Thats the reason the law is in place, you know, to protect them.

The most effective response is to do everything in your power. So yes, find out how it was purchased and report the shop if you suspect the law has been broken.

Incredibly, you can also ‘focus on your child’ and teach him to make better choices AS WELL.

Imagine that!

(sorry you’ve encountered so many arseholes on here OP and I hope your son made a full recovery.)

Stop embarrassing yourself.

Eh?

Have you never been young and done something behind your parents back or were you perfect? Why is it the parents fault?

I did loads of things wrong when I was young and yes, parents are responsible for their children, not Mr Khan in the off-licence.

OP you state your 15 year old didn't go in. So was he aware that he needed to stay outside to have a better chance of the older teen getting served? Are you sure they are actually even telling the truth? Maybe they gave their money to an over age stranger to buy it for them but are worried you will be more cross for doing something this daft too.

I wouldn't be reporting when you aren't sure of the facts surrounding the purchase because it is unlikely an off-licence would not check ID.

It is if he's selling vodka to underage kids. Even if they had a false ID he should be made aware to be more careful. Some shop owners don't care as long as they are getting a sale.

I know, I know. You’ve brought me round a bit. But it is still ultimately the parent’s responsibility. Little Johnny needs a good telling off, not a “it’s not my problem” attitude from Mum and Dad.

Sorry you've had such a terrifying experience.
You must have been to hell and back.

I get you feel you need to direct your energy somewhere and want "justice" but I would be focussing more on your kid and what they've learnt about their own limits. Their exposure to situations with alcohol is only going to get more frequent. At friends houses/ older siblings etc.

No it's not against the law, but there's a risk it could be a proxy sale. If the teen isn't there then the shop assistant has no reason (unless someone says this is for my 15 year old of course!) to suspect it might be a proxy sale, if it's a very young child then less reason than if it's a teen.

When someone underage (or without ID even if over age) is present then that increases the risk it's a proxy sale, that person being 'involved' like handling or choosing etc also increases the risk it's a proxy sale, conversations about it increase that risk.

As the person selling it you're responsible if that alcohol does end up in the wrong hands and you have to prove that you took all reasonable precautions to prevent that happening.
"Well they told me it wasn't for the underage person and that they are his mum, would never let him drink and it's for her" isn't a defence for the person selling it despite any of the 'warning' signs associated with a proxy sale, because people lie to get what they want and parents do buy alcohol for their underage kids, you have to be able to show that there was no reason for you to suspect this was a proxy sale if something goes wrong and it ends up with a 15 year old in hospital for example, not that the person attempting to buy told you it was ok so it must be.
Or if the teen leaves after the refusal and then the person attempts again, the sale should still be refused on the same grounds. If they go through a different cashier then that changes things because shop assistants don't have a hive mind.

And as for pubs and restaurants, you can drink if 16/7 (certain things and with a meal only) and bought by someone over 18. And the staff are in a better position to monitor who the alcohol ends up with. I have served people and then asked a young looking person who's been bought a drink for ID and removed it if they can't supply that ID, in fact I got a bit of a talking to from licencing for serving someone who then passed that on to two younger people as a test purchase, and due to serving other people it took me a little while to notice, but I did and I removed it when they couldn't produce ID.

I've also asked the person I'm serving for ID for anyone they are buying alcohol for and refused that drink if the ID can't be produced. Large groups of young people and the two with ID will usually result in me only serving 2 alcoholic drinks until I see ID for everyone who wants an alcoholic drink.

If I'm the one taking the risk then I'm the one who makes the decision.

And have you never seen a thread on here where someone has been asked for ID and didn't have any and were refused? There's usually hell on with people saying derogatory things about shop assistants, making up laws and licence conditions as they go along and the general feeling is that nothing, not even licencing conditions or laws, or the possibility of a fine/punishment for the person selling it, should come before customer service.
You don't have to actually break the law to break licencing conditions and face those concequences is something some people find very hard to get their head around.

But all your examples are of some reason for the shop to think the sale is actually intended for a younger person.

The pp was saying that supermarkets would refuse the sale just because a teen was present. That’s what I’m saying is mad.

The shop is not responsible if they had no reason to suppose that the sale was for an underage drinker. The law does not place strict liability on a licensee for use outside the shop or demand that no u-18 is present at sale.

If the issue is minimising risk of u-18s drinking, we will need to ban the sale of alcohol.

I haven’t seen threads of the sort you mention, but I’m happy to believe they happen. In which case I disagree with people who kick up a fuss about no-id refusal (unless it was absurd).

Well not quite, I said a teen being present increases the risk that it could be a proxy sale, that could be with their very responsible parent buying a gift for someone else, or their older friend or relative buying it for themselves, or an acquaintance they have asked to buy them alcohol as they bumped into them.

Retailers have to 'protect children from the effects of alcohol' to meet their licencing obligations, and where proxy sales are concerned that means refusing a sale if they're in doubt. Because they are held responsible if the sale goes ahead and they knew - or should have known that it was for someone underage. The kicker is that someone else (the police/licencing) get to decide the should have known bit, usually after the event when something has gone wrong.

Someone doing the weekly shop with their two teens may be very unlikely to be grabbing them a bottle of vodka for the park on Friday night, or that someone calling somewhere to get a bottle of wine for dinner, but alternatively that someone doing the weekly shop could be an older friend getting that vodka for those teens, or the someone popped into the shop for a bottle of wine could be for the teens with them and spinning you a story. How could you definitely know which it is, enough to be sure you're not allowing a proxy sale and that you won't be held accountable for committing an offence, even unknowingly? Especially when someone else gets to decide that maybe you should have known, after someone has come to harm.

I agree that sometimes it's misinterpreted, there's poor training and understanding around it and some of the training I received from employers before doing an accredited course was more about putting the fear of God into anyone selling alcohol rather than a measured approach. And some people are over zealous and that leads to legitimate sales being refused.

But as I said, if you want robust policies in place to protect children from this then there should be a level of acceptance that sometimes a legitimate sale will get caught in that, and if you would prefer that the policies aren't so robust and there's less emphasis, that illegal sales are going to slip through. People want these things to work perfectly, all the time, have their children protected but not have their 'rights' to buy alcohol infringed, and that's where the problems lie because life doesn't work like that.

I don’t see that merely being with a teen is any indication of ‘risk’. You might as well not serve to a parent you know has a teen, even if the teen isn’t present.

You should need proper grounds to refuse a sale on a proxy basis. And I very, very much doubt that any court or licensing officer would hold a licensee responsible if an adult was found to have given a child alcohol bought from a shop that had no reason to refuse other than that a teen was with the purchaser.

I imagine that a policy of that sort must be for the convenience of the shop not having to actually explain to a customer that they believe it’s a proxy sale, I.e. is unrelated to risk in virtually all cases.