Trading Standards?

Mimi_Arc_en_ciel

I'm sorry if this is in the wrong place, I dont know where else to put this.

My friend is a lodger in a pub, He doesnt work there but occassionally the Landlord will ask him to cover the bar whilst he nips out, which my friend does as he's worried that it will cause problems with him living there. (no money involved)

Anyway, never been a problem - until today

Friend goes home to a letter from trading standards, It says that they tested some sprit and that it is "unsatisfactory and in the opinion of the analst does not conform to be authentic. You have been named as being in charge of the pub in XXXX absence in January"

Friends been invited along to a meeting.

Now the sample was taken in March so i'm not sure why this relates to January. Friend was looking after the pub in January - but only as a lodger, the pub wasn't open to the public in January.

The letter says that friend will be interviewed under police and criminal evidence act and it will be recorded.

My friends really worried - he's adament he knows nothing about any of this and he thinks LL is trying to screw him over.

Does anyone know what the outcome might be (worst case scenario?)

Thanks

Weirdlittleman

He needs to get a solicitor.
If he was in deed in charge of the pub at that time it could be he is in trouble. I would not take any advice on here and seek that of a specialist solicitor.

Certainly do not attend the interview and make comments etc without legal representation and getting all the facts first.

If you do attend without legal representation I would simply state on record you are unwilling to comment until you are presented with the facts of the case and seek legal advice and that this should not be seen as a sign of guilt.

dickydonkin

I would suspect that the licensee is totally responsible for the products and the monitoring of staff.

Although it is not in dispute that the product being sold was inferior to what is was supposed to be, I would not be too worried as in such a situation it is going to be very difficult to prove who actually deceived the customers.

Reminds me of a story where a Club Steward prior to going on holiday filled up (very large) empty whisky bottles with cold tea to satisfy the stocktake. Unfortunately, when he was away, they sold quite a bit of whisky and the bar staff had to use the 'modified' blend from the cellar. Obviously, he was sacked on his return. I don't know the actual brand of the whiskey but it could have been TEAchers! True story though.

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

He needs to get a solicitor.
If he was in deed in charge of the pub at that time it could be he is in trouble. I would not take any advice on here and seek that of a specialist solicitor.

Certainly do not attend the interview and make comments etc without legal representation and getting all the facts first.

If you do attend without legal representation I would simply state on record you are unwilling to comment until you are presented with the facts of the case and seek legal advice and that this should not be seen as a sign of guilt.

But you have offered some nonetheless!

Mimi_Arc_en_ciel

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

He needs to get a solicitor.
If he was in deed in charge of the pub at that time it could be he is in trouble. I would not take any advice on here and seek that of a specialist solicitor.

Certainly do not attend the interview and make comments etc without legal representation and getting all the facts first.

If you do attend without legal representation I would simply state on record you are unwilling to comment until you are presented with the facts of the case and seek legal advice and that this should not be seen as a sign of guilt.

Just after a "worst case scenario" - He's rang the number on the letter and hasnt got anywhere with them, I rang my friend who works for council and shes said it should be LL who gets in trouble - Just trying to check before I say anything to my friend as i dont want to tell him it'll be ok if it's not going to be

dpassmore wrote: »

I would suspect that the licensee is totally responsible for the products and the monitoring of staff.

Although it is not in dispute that the product being sold was inferior to what is was supposed to be, I would not be too worried as in such a situation it is going to be very difficult to prove who actually deceived the customers.

Reminds me of a story where a Club Steward prior to going on holiday filled up (very large) empty whisky bottles with cold tea to satisfy the stocktake. Unfortunately, when he was away, they sold quite a bit of whisky and the bar staff had to use the 'modified' blend from the cellar. Obviously, he was sacked on his return. I don't know the actual brand of the whiskey but it could have been TEAchers! True story though.



But you have offered some nonetheless!

lol i like the little steward bit at the bottom! :rotfl:

I was told it would be licensee but i dont wanna say this to my friend if its not definate. I'm still not sure what links January and March - My friend thinks that he may have taken the delivery of the Brandy in January when LL was away on holiday ?

Hmmm - will do more digging

(And yes i've told him to get legal advice etc, he's under the impression "I havent done anything Illegal/immoral so i wont need any" - Idiot!)

Thanks tho!

P.S - My friend was not "in charge" of the pub as such - LL went away on holiday, friend was looking after the pub as a lodger and the pub was not open (I'm comparing that to me looking after my mum and dads house when they go away, im in charge but it isnt mine - does that make sense?)

terra_ferma

Maybe he is going to be interviewed as a witness?

DCFC79

id tell your friend to get some legal advice,