Co-OP and the tale of age verification

peachyprice

Storck wrote: »

The rules are the same as for ID for alcohol, FULL driving license, passport or a card with the PASS logo. It is nice and simple, three things and nothing else.

And what are the rules for buying cooking sauce with NO alcohol, or loaf of bread, or an apple?

RadoJo

There are clearly two separate issues here - whether the OP should have been IDed at all for buying the sauce, and whether his ID should have been accepted.

I think everyone citing 'common sense' seems to think that this is universal and means the same thing to everyone - from the point of view of the shop assistant, common sense would dictate that they not risk a personal fine and prosecution for selling a product that they weren't sure about the restrictions on to someone who's ID they also weren't sure of.

I don't think that calling people jobsworths for not wanting to take a pretty big risk is fair - to you, it seems stupid and pointless, but to someone who can ill afford to lose their job or face a fine, there's absolutely no incentive to break the 'rules' and use their own interpretation. I doubt if a member of staff has ever been sacked or fined for refusing to sell someone an item, whereas it is a distinct possibility if they are under-cautious.

That's not to say that I wouldn't be annoyed in your position OP, but given the amount of ID you seem to carry around anyway, it can't be that hard to add your driving license to the list?

unknown_expert

pimento wrote: »

My 17 year old son works part time at the Co-Op and if he sells cigs or booze to an underage it isn't the Co-Op who gets into trouble, it's him. I'd rather he turned 20 people away wrongly than get done for selling something to an underage person.

He's not a jobsworth, just a kid.

Well said, im a customer service manager at a big chain supermarket and i just wish all customers would understand that it is the cashier who faces the liability of prosecution, criminal record, a fine, possible dismissal from the company and even possibly a loss of alcohol licence for the store they work in...and you still ask the question why they refuse you if you dont carry ID round?
Okay so theres been some silly instances in the newspaper where a 90 year old lady has been asked for ID in the one-stop shop.
My cashiers are generally very good with regards to the new Think 25 policy and if a customer challenges me about why they have been refused i stick with my cashier as the responsibility is down to them, bearing in mind the consequences as listed above, i dont blame them for being extra careful.

Unknown Expert

biscit

frivolous_fay wrote: »

Sounds slightly illegal though. I don't think that counts.

I thought if you were under 18 the most you can hope for is the Visa Electron card. Certainly you need to be 18 to sign up for an actual credit card.

biscit

CWCDiver wrote: »

Erm, this isn't about cigrettes or booze, it is about Chicken Tonight, a tomato based cooking sauce....

I am not sure our local area has any problems with youths sitting round on street corners quaffing Chicken Tonight and causing problems.

The issue is a common sense one.

We expect so much of our school leavers, setting standards for literacy, numeracy etc, but in the adult world it seems unreasonable to have any expectations as to what the average human being ought to comprehend.

I think this intellectual relativism is a really rude attitude. The shop assistant made a really really stupid error, not one that is understandable. and that should be justified.

This case is different to all those people who are moaning because they got ID'd for actual booze, because the OP wasn't buying booze and did provide ID.

maninthestreet

peachyprice wrote: »

Again, there is NO alcohol in the sauce, they only had to read the label to ascertain this, which I'm sure the manager could have managed to do. There was nothing for them to 'protect' themselves from. Any alcohol in the red wine would have evaporated while the sauce was in the vat at Knorr.

Liquer chocolates, and anything else containing alcohol must, by law, state the alcohol content on the label. So where's the alcohol?????

Correct - no alcohol means it's not subject to any restrictions on it's sale and consumption under the 2003 Licensing Act.

biscit

Enfieldian wrote: »

UK2010, you are a fine example of the jobsworth, argumentitive, stubborn, rulebook quoting, politically correct automatons that cause these sort of problems due to an inability to demonstrate a modicum of common sense.

This has nothing to do with political correctness, which is just another way of saying politeness to any decent, sensible person.

biscit

maninthestreet wrote: »

Correct - no alcohol means it's not subject to any restrictions on it's sale and consumption under the 2003 Licensing Act.

To add to this- Liquor Chocolates are licensed because unlike Chicken Tonight they contain alcohol.

Anyway the problem binge drinker is most likely to be middle aged and drinking themselves quietly to death at home, not a young person falling over drunk on a Friday night, or some government employee cheating at making chicken based meals.

JohalaReewi

unknown_expert wrote: »

Well said, im a customer service manager at a big chain supermarket and i just wish all customers would understand that it is the cashier who faces the liability of prosecution, criminal record, a fine, possible dismissal from the company and even possibly a loss of alcohol licence for the store they work in...and you still ask the question why they refuse you if you dont carry ID round?

For a cooking sauce with no alcohol in it ??:eek::eek:

peachyprice

unknown_expert wrote: »

Well said, im a customer service manager at a big chain supermarket and i just wish all customers would understand that it is the cashier who faces the liability of prosecution, criminal record, a fine, possible dismissal from the company and even possibly a loss of alcohol licence for the store they work in...and you still ask the question why they refuse you if you dont carry ID round?
Okay so theres been some silly instances in the newspaper where a 90 year old lady has been asked for ID in the one-stop shop.
My cashiers are generally very good with regards to the new Think 25 policy and if a customer challenges me about why they have been refused i stick with my cashier as the responsibility is down to them, bearing in mind the consequences as listed above, i dont blame them for being extra careful.

Unknown Expert

So you'd expect your cashiers also to ask for ID, and refuse to sell to children, wine gums because you beleive they are at risk of prosecution?