NO2ID

NO2ID

NO2ID's ID Card & Database State Online Discussion Forum
 
It is currently Wed, 22 May 2013 09:14:15 +0000

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: ID checks for "age-related" products
PostPosted: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:30:36 +0000 
Offline
E-List
E-List

Joined: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 12:21:08 +0000
Posts: 166
Dear all,

Apologies if I am repeating anything which has already been posted, or am asking questions which have already been answered.

I frequently get asked to show proof of age to buy alcohol and tobacco products, which I accept is part of what businesses are required to do according to the law (tobacco = legal age restricted product.) However, on a number of occassions I have been asked to provide proof of age for buying tobacco-related products (i.e. filter tips, rolling papers) which are themselves not legally restricted items.

Today I decided to look into this issue, as a matter of personal curiosity.

On the telephone, I was informed by Trading Standards that the sale of tobacco-related products and alcohol-related products are in no way restricted by law. (Therefore a small child may legally purchase any amount of filters and rolling papers, and a retailer may legally sell them.) I was informed that a retailer can have an "age restricted" policy and ask for age authentication beyond the requirements of the law, as a self-imposed condition of sale.

The Cooperative Supermarket was the location of my most recent not-required-by-law ID check. In this instance, I attempted to purchase cigarette filter tips (in addition to other non-age restricted items such as milk, bread etc.)

On the telephone, I asked for and promptly received a copy of the business' "Age Restricted sales policy", which had no mention of tobacco-related products at all. This is the policy in full (I asked for any supplementary information, and was informed there was none):

The Cooperative Supermarket's Age Restricted Sales Policy, in full, as received on 14-09-2010 wrote:
AGE RELATED SALES

Our Viewpoint

As a responsible retailer The Co-operative aims to be a good corporate citizen, acting with the highest integrity at all times. As part of this commitment, we ensure, as far as practically possible, that we do not sell age-restricted goods to underage purchasers.

Our Actions

General

1. We provide training to all our relevant staff. This highlights the age restrictions in place and their responsibility to prevent sales of age-related products to underage purchasers. When an age-restricted product is scanned at the till, a prompt comes up to tell the checkout operator that the product has an age restriction. If there is any doubt over whether the customer is viewed as being under 25, staff are instructed to ask for proof of age. If this cannot be provided then the transaction must not proceed.

2. In order to ensure our staff are able to recognise valid proofs of age, and in line with government guidelines, we only accept the following forms of identification: a passport, a full or provisional photographic driver’s license or a proof-of-age card carrying the PASS logo.

3. Point-of-sale materials are displayed on our shelves to remind customers that there are age restrictions on certain products.

4. Retailers are required by law not to sell certain classes of goods to persons under a prescribed age. For example, it is illegal to:
· Sell tobacco or cigarettes to anyone under the age of 18 years old.

· Sell alcohol to anyone below 18 years old, with the exception of chocolate liqueurs, which can be sold to those aged 16 and over.
· Sell abusable solvents to any persons under 18 if there is reasonable cause to suspect that the substance or its fumes are likely to be inhaled.
· Sell butane lighter fluid to those under 18 years old.
· Supply videos or BBFC-classified computer and video games to persons below the classification age. These are currently 12, 15 and 18.
· Sell fireworks, including sparklers, to children under the age of 18, with the exception of items such as party poppers, which can be sold to those aged 16 and over.
· Sell National Lottery tickets and scratchcards to those under 16 years old.
· Sell knives to those under 18 years old.
· Sell spray paint to those under 16 years old.
However, as part of our commitment to responsible retailing, in some areas we choose to go beyond the legislative requirements. These areas are as follows:

Alcohol

In addition to alcoholic content and sensible drinking advice (please see ‘Alcohol’ for more information), Co-operative brand alcoholic drinks are labelled with the reminder: 'It is illegal to sell alcohol to under 18 year olds'.

Solvents

We follow industry guidelines, such as the British Retail Consortium's guide on volatile substance abuse, to help us ensure that we carry out best practice in our stores.

Following extensive research by DTI, the words solvent abuse can kill instantly, flanked by bolts of lightning, have been identified as the most effective means of communication. Here is an example of one of our solvent labels:

By law solvents need only be restricted to persons under the age of 18 if the seller has reason to suspect they will be abused. Our staff are trained always to err on the side of caution on this point by treating abusable solvents in the same way as other age-restricted items.

Computer and video games

Although the system is not legally enforceable, we do not sell computer or video games to those below the PEGI or ELSPA age ratings stated on their boxes. Please see ‘Toys of Violence’ for more information.


As is clear, there is no reference to tobacco-related products in the policy. On the telephone to the Cooperative Supermarket's customer services department again, I spoke to a worker and her supervisor and asked why I had been asked to show proof of age to buy a product which is neither legally age-restricted, nor even on their own "age restricted policy". I asked for a full list of items restricted by the business, and was told I could not get this list. (It must exist: the computer flags up certain items when scanned on the till.)

I made the following points, which were accepted as true by the supervisor:
- there is no mention of "tobacco-related products" on the policy.
- tobacco-related products are not the same as "tobacco".
- tobacco-related products are not restricted by law.
- whilst tobacco-related products are usually used in conjunction with tobacco, this is not necessarily true.

According to the customer service supervisor:
- their legal team had chosen the wording.
- if something was wrong, Trading Standards would have taken action.

Back on the telephone to Trading Standards, I explained that the written policy had no mention of the item or class of items that I was restricted from purchasing. After speaking to his supervisor, I was informed that it isn't even necessary to put the item or class of items on a written policy. I was told that technically any business could ask for proof of age for the purchase of a mars bar, and have no need to put any such requirement on a written policy.

In other words, a business can arbitrarily ask for proof of age for any product, choosing any age, and have no need to have this in a written policy. ("I'm sorry sir, we need to verify that you are over the age of 45 to purchase this loaf of bread. No, there is no written policy, nor do we require one.")

Now, of course, I understand that a business can refuse to serve a customer at their own discretion, so long as this is not done on the basis of discrimination. But surely arbitrarily designating certain items on the basis of age is age discrimination?

As far as I can see, there would be nothing to stop a supermarket worker from asking for proof of age for anything from condoms to coca cola.

Has anyone else looked in depth into the matter before? Any thoughts?


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: ID checks for "age-related" products
PostPosted: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:08:14 +0000 
I think you have been given accurate info by trading standards. It sounds strange looking at it from the 'ID perspective' but under English contract law a party may generally (there are a few exceptions, such as the promise being illegal, but none I can find prevent someone from being able to request ID for anything) make a legally binding promise under any terms they wish, however certain things (e.g misrepresentations, duress) will either make that promise invalid from the outset or valid and capable of being terminated at the option of the disputing party. For these reasons I wouldn't put much stock in a business 'policy'.

So while I can sense that you find this particular situation silly (I agree with you) there isn't much of a leg to stand on. If you don't agree to the terms then don't enter into contract with them. Most retailers won't do this though because they usually want to make a sale.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: ID checks for "age-related" products
PostPosted: Wed, 30 May 2012 17:05:09 +0000 
I hate this. I really do hate this. It makes me mad every time I have to go into a supermarket.
But, intellectually, what I find interesting is the arbitrarily high age, set as the minimum age where you need to 'present ID'. It's 25.

From this I draw 3 conclusions :-
1. Big corporations, Tesco's and the like, have no compunction about siding with the government when it comes to illiberal measures like ID cards.
(Just another reason to hate them!) I'm sure they CRB check and Credit Check all their employees already.
2. 25 might be about the generational age that separates the young and naive from those of us who are old enough to remember that things weren't always this way.
3. People in the age-band 25-30 might even be flattered that they have been ID-checked. In fact I know it for a fact. 'Oooh, I got ID'ed the other day when I went to buy blah blah blah'.

Point 1 tells us nothing we don't already know. Point 2 smacks of divide and conquer. Or if you prefer 'social education', as the oldsters who might kick up a stink aren't affected, and the younger ones end up participating in an eventual fait-accompli. And Point 3 supports Point 2. And yes I can imagine the relevant decision-makers factoring it into their considerations. They are that cynical.


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Template made by DEVPPL/ThatBigForum