Money Moral Dilemma: Should I have paid for alcohol-free drinks at a bring-your-own restaurant?

tain

Loads going on here.

1. The specific irk from the restaurant owner seems to be that the restaurant sell that exact brand of 0% beer. So would a different brand be fine? 
2. The restaurant should charge corkage to stop this from happening, even if it's a minimal token amount. If they don't want to do that, they need to make allowances for this kind of eventuality.
3. It seems absurd that they'd make the differentiation between booze and low/zero alcohol booze. If you've already written off the sale of alcoholic drinks from your profits, stop being petty about any flex in the system that might affect 5% of the total bill, if that. And I include soft drinks in this - putting your customers into some kind of hierarchy of importance that comes with a premium to some of them is a BAD business model. Can you imagine if vegan meals were twice the price???

VintageBelle

 A lot of restaurants I know that aren't licensed will not let you bring your own non alcoholic drinks as they too need to make a profit. It's polite to just check before going.

SallyB21

I reckon its generally understood to mean that its bring your own alcohol if you wish to drink it, not bring your own orange squash.  You can't just decide that you'll make your own rules up. I'd agree that the restaurant should make it clear, and no doubt will in future, but they were in the right.  You usually get charged corkage as well - though it may not state that on the menu.  If you are going out to eat you expect to pay more than you would at home for often the same food.  No point being a  resentful cheapskate. If you don't want to pay for alcohol-free beer dine elsewhere.
It's not unusual for a restaurant to have a  BYOB policy until their licence to serve alcohol has been approved   - it's not always a quick process.  
Of course, there are restaurants with religious reasons for not selling alcohol permanently.  I'm a bit surprised that responders on here are so  unfamiliar with this, to be honest.  Must be living under a rock. 

Rusty_Moskvitch

The restaurant should have made it clear that it was "Bring Your Own Alcoholic Drinks". Allowing you to have your own alcohol free beer "Just this once" is fair enough to cover your misunderstanding and their imprecise information. Remember, a restaurant is a business and they need to make a reasonable profit to be able to keep trading. It is for them to decide their trading terms and whether or not to serve you. I think the restaurant acted fairly and you should not expect to get anything for free based on a loophole in their terms and conditions.

tain

SallyB21 said:

I reckon its generally understood to mean that its bring your own alcohol if you wish to drink it, not bring your own orange squash.  You can't just decide that you'll make your own rules up. I'd agree that the restaurant should make it clear, and no doubt will in future, but they were in the right.  You usually get charged corkage as well - though it may not state that on the menu.  If you are going out to eat you expect to pay more than you would at home for often the same food.  No point being a  resentful cheapskate. If you don't want to pay for alcohol-free beer dine elsewhere.
It's not unusual for a restaurant to have a  BYOB policy until their licence to serve alcohol has been approved   - it's not always a quick process.  
Of course, there are restaurants with religious reasons for not selling alcohol permanently.  I'm a bit surprised that responders on here are so  unfamiliar with this, to be honest.  Must be living under a rock. 

You've made some sweeping assumptions there, chiefly that every single restaurant with a BYOB policy has exactly the same rules regarding non-alcoholic beer, and that they all communicate that fully to the whole country. 

To illustrate the point: If a restaurant don't sell alcohol for religious reasons, I'm pretty certain a very high % of them restaurants won't sell non-alcoholic beer, as it still contains a small % of alcohol. So it's quite unfair to say the customer is 'making up their own rules'. 

tain

Everyone that keeps banging on about 'profits' and how every restaurant has a right to make a buck.

They *chose* to put in silly rules that they felt stimulated growth in custom. It's ridiculous to suggest that they can forego profits if it means bringing in extra customers, but they can refuse to forego profits for a section of them customers based on some arbitrary rule. 

I mean, they can very much do that. But I fully support any customers who feel victimised by this rule in leaving them bad reviews and never eating there again. 

You either decide that the drinks profits aren't important, or you just have a straight up no-booze rule. You don't section your customers into groups that have different premiums to pay, based entirely on the different markets you want to exploit. Are soft drink customers second rate? Are vegans or people with allergies also second rate? Charge them extra for their meals? 

Redwey

Being new to the forum, I’m disappointed in the tone of some of the posts. Admonishing and censorious towards the original poster, and even some dripping with sarcasm, implying that by bringing your low or non-alcoholic beer to a restaurant means that someone is  trying it on, trying to get away with ‘ cheating ‘ the business, it being a ridiculous expectation, etc,etc.
We don’t know whether the restaurant made it’s policy clear on 0% beer. 

I certainly wouldn’t be going again if they were so parsimonious as to make a fuss about zero beer. 

And what about 0.5% alcohol then? It’s often sold alongside zero alcohol drinks. It appeals to the same market. Presumably that’s alright as it contains a tiny amount of alcohol.

bradavon

This is essentially the same argument many meat eaters use against vegetarians and vegans as a means to discriminate, the masses discriminate against the minority.

So we're saying it's fair to charge an alcoholic whilst everyone else in their group isn't charged to have a drink? By going BYOB the restaurant owner has decided they don't want to pay alcohol licence costs and has also decided they'll make money off food instead.

Whilst yes the licence is an alcohol only one, the point is the restaurant owner is making their money "off the food". If you ever decide you need to stop drinking alcohol, see how you feel having to pay when no one else is.

Would totally put me off going back to that restaurant. The restaurant owner has still made a profit off me.

bradavon

Redwey said:

Being new to the forum, I’m disappointed in the tone of some of the posts. Admonishing and censorious towards the original poster, and even some dripping with sarcasm, implying that by bringing your low or non-alcoholic beer to a restaurant means that someone is  trying it on, trying to get away with ‘ cheating ‘ the business, it being a ridiculous expectation, etc,etc.

Agreed. A rather pernicious one too. As a nation we drink to much alcohol and alcoholism is a very real issue. We should be encouraging people to drink less, not penalising them.

If you were on your own, maybe the restaurant owner has a point, but to embarrass your customer around their friends. Uncool.

Katecooks

fuzBear said:

If you think the prices are unfair, drink tap water. 

The restaurant either doesn't hold a licence or doesn't want to obtain one. But trying to encourage business by permitting BYOB. I can't think of any restaurant that would allow turning up with your own drinks (outside of BYOB). What's in it for them? Shouldn't we all do our bit, to help local businesses to recover. 

It's not uncommon for small restaurants not to hold a licence and to let customers bring their own alcohol; those who do are happy with the arrangement. What's in it for them? They are selling food/meals and people are more likely to eat there as they won't be ripped off by the drinks bill. Maybe in the future this restaurant will decide to get a licence but maybe they don't want the hassle or the expense (and necessary qualified staff/knowledge) and want to build up their reputation for good food. It's either bring a bottle or it's not - I've never heard of a place that would only allow you to bring alcohol but not soft drinks; it would be irresponsible to encourage people to drink alcohol (especially the designated driver). I'm afraid my answer would be to continue to support this restaurant but to decant a non-alcoholic drink into a washed out wine bottle!