challenge 25

[carol morris]

my friend has been to investigation due to not using the challenge 25 it was internal not the trading standards he was told at the end they would go to disiplinary he told the managers holding the investigation that he had done nothing wrong only not used the challenge 25 but the person he served looked 25 or over did he have to do the challenge 25 as ive been told this is an opinion not a law he broke the employers policy but that would mean asking every person he serves so he gets it right what punishment can he receive if any?

[honeybee13]

Hello and thank you for joining the forum. I think you need to tell us what challenge 25 is please. And where do Trading Standards fit in?

 

HB

[postggj]

the selling of alchohol or smokes i think this refers to

[papasmurf1cx]

Hi Carol

 

I am assuming your friend are in retail and the challenge 25 is a policy that involves the checkout assistant to "challenge anyone that appears to be under 25 years of age" so that they can prove their age beyond dispute in order for the company to avoid prosecution for selling to underage drinkers, is that correct?

 

If that is correct can you tell us what the policy actually says as I think you are talking about two different things here ie the law on when a prosecution can take place and also an employment policy so the company avoids prosecution which would be where Trading Standards come in. A company who loses a liqueur licence for allowing underage people to purchase alcohol would lose a lot of income so would treat such a policy as very important and a breach would be treated in the same vein.

[bonnygirl]

Hi Carol

Ridiculous just have a look at what was in the papers about some supermarks are about it. There are lots of links about this just Google and you will find them. I know some stores use written warnings procedure as a way of avoiding paying their staff bonus. Perhaps this is what they are doing to your friend. Last year a friend of my dad lost bonus because of something very minor. She was not even on the shop floor at the time either. She was chewing gum behind the scenes and was given a written warning about it. She also lost the bonus because she got a written warning and it the company policy written warnings will stays in place for a year and as such staff will unfortunately lose their bonus for that year.

----------------------

 

Supermarket refuses to sell bottle of wine to father... because he has no ID for his eight-year-old daughter

 

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 2:56 PM on 24th September 2010

 

A father who went shopping with his daughter claims checkout staff refused to sell him a bottle of wine because he had no ID for the eight-year-old.

 

Navid Asadi, 28, says he was asked for identification as he arrived at the till with Leyla at the Tesco Express store in Leigh, Essex.

 

Despite explaining his daughter was only eight, he claims shop workers refused to sell him the alcohol and said the store later confirmed their decision was company policy.

Mr Asadi, who had popped into the shop to buy groceries, said: 'I just can't believe it.

'I totally understand if you are 18 and with a group of kids but my daughter is eight.

 

A father who went shopping with his daughter in Leigh, Essex, claims checkout staff refused to sell him a bottle of wine because he had no ID for the eight-year-old

 

'I was buying potatoes, bananas, ham, regular shopping, and had a bottle of wine and they would not serve it to me.

 

'They didn't serve me so I left the whole shopping and walked out.'

 

Mr Asadi, from Hadleigh in Essex, added: 'I don't understand it. I was just standing there in shock. She is just eight.

 

'What did they want me to do? Let her stand outside on her own because I want to buy a bottle of wine?'

 

After leaving the shop he called the supermarket's headquarters.

 

'I even called Tesco head office and they said that this is the policy. It is madness,' he said.

A spokesman for the supermarket said: 'Tesco is unable to confirm this incident occurred.

'We are looking into it with the store as a matter of urgency.'

 

Angela Ives, 46, was refused two bottles of white wine at an Iceland store in Wickford, Essex, last year because she had her 17-year-old daughter with her.

 

In July, 67-year-old pensioner Christopher Page from Harlow, Essex, was refused a bottle of cider at his local One Stop Shop because he did not have acceptable ID - despite showing his bus pass.

 

 

[Sidewinder]

I can only speak as I find here, and with a certain degree of knowledge.

 

Supermarkets, and in many cases especially convenience stores, are regularly visited by Trading Standards, not so much in an atempt to catch them out, but to make sure that they are taking a responsible attitude towards selling alcohol, cigarettes and any number of other age restricted goods. A mystery shopper, often aged between 18 and 20 but dressed to look either older (or younger in some cases) will make a test purchase and then a letter is sent to the store (and their Head Office) either congratulating them on the fact that the shopper was challenged, or expressing concern that they weren't.

 

Think 25, Challenge 25 - whatever it may be called in that particular company is a practice which demonstrates that the terms of the store's licence are being taken seriously and all reasonable steps are being taken to prevent underage sales. The issue of underage drinking is not just a matter of those purchasing alcohol being underage, but also with older friends doing so on behalf of minors, or strangers being approached outside shops to buy goods for minors ("here mister you couldn't buy me some fags if I give you the money?"). Staff have to be aware of all these possibilities and respond to them with requests for ID or even a refusal to serve if they believe that the alcohol might be destined for an underage person, hence the cases illustrated in the Daily Mail article above. The penalties for a store or company whose policies are seen to be even slightly lax are severe - the Manager (or licence holder) will be held personally responsible, as well as the assistant serving possibly receiving a fine in the event of underage purchase, and the next time that the company apply for a licence to sell alcohol in a new store, their suitability to hold that licence might well be called into question. Stores HAVE had licences revoked or suspended for fixed periods, which can deprive them of a huge amount of revenue.

 

TESCO

 

SAINSBURYS

 

For that reason, the relevant company policy on alcohol sales has to be seen to be enforced, so in the OP's case, the store may well have either a history of underage sales, or a previous failure to challenge customers making age restricted purchases. The Challenge 25 policy will inevitably rely on an opinion as to whether the customer looked over 25 or not, so your friend needs to be adamant that he made a proper assessment of the customer's age before serving. It may well be that your friend cannot remember the precise transaction (Although CCTV is often used to investigate this) so should be able to demonstrate that they do always ask for ID when appropriate and it would be therefore extremely out of character not to have done so on this occasion unless the customer was clearly of an appropriate age. Providing that your friend does have a good record of asking for ID, then this shouldn't become a dismissal offence, but for the reasons given above, the store HAS to be seen to respond to any concerns over serving minors. Your friend hasn't broken the law but may well be in breach of company policy, and if this is suspected then there is a right to take corrective action.

[bonnygirl]

I agree SW, but how are staff to know, when it is appropriate to sell alcohol if they are being set up by the ST or mystery shoppers.

 

During power hours staff are very busy checking out customer and bearing in mind that they are also being monitor to see how fast and how many customer they can service while on tills,, therefore they do not have a great deal of time to assess customers attire or makeup to see if they are being set up by whoever. Stores are cutting back on staff because of the recession therefore more pressure on existing staff working

 

It is so unfair if Trading Standards or Mystery Shoppers are sent into store deliberately made up to look older than 25 in order to catch out poorly paid overworked staff on minimum wage.

 

Also perhaps that a lot of LA jobs are going on the public sector soon maybe Trading Standards or Councillor will not be able to spend our taxes on project like below mention in the future.

"An elderly woman and her son was find, tag and sent for community service for selling a goldfish to a 14 year old boy because he walked out of Major's Pet Shop with the goldfish, Joan and her son Mark were ordered to appear at a magistrates court - despite them saying he looked much older than 14. "

At the hearing yesterday, Joan pleaded guilty and was given a £1,000 fine and placed under curfew for seven weeks, Mark was fined £750 and ordered to complete 120 hours of community service”

 

"Another case, where our taxes paid for 12 councillors to go on a fact finding exercise on lap dancing, the licensing committee at Cornwall Council - all 12 of them - are off to visit the local nightspots aimed at gentlemen. It is all in the name of work, of course.

The team will see how the establishments operate before strict new legislation on the area's sex entertainment venues is imposed".

Edited November 7, 2010 by bonnygirl

[Sidewinder]

I agree SW, but how are staff to know, when it is appropriate to sell alcohol if they are being set up by the ST or mystery shoppers.[/Quote]

 

I agree - don't shoot the messenger here! This is why the policy is 'Challenge 25' not 'Challenge 18' or 'Challenge 21'. It is that if everybody who is, or who looks to be under 25 is asked for ID then one supposes that those who are not yet 18 will be more likely to be caught in the net - there would be a far more limited number of 17 year olds who look over 25 than there would be who look 18 or 21, for example. If your friend is conscious that he always asks for ID when the customer is obviously below the age of 18, and on this occasion (perhaps backed up by CCTV evidence to demonstrate this) then it is more of a judgement call - if any reasonable person would have believed that person to be over 25 then he is unlikely to be found in breach. If the customer in question was only 18, then company policy would dictate that he should have been more doubtful and should have asked for ID.

 

During power hours staff are very busy checking out customer and bearing in mind that they are also being monitor to see how fast and how many customer they can service while on tills,, therefore they do not have a great deal of time to assess customers attire or makeup to see if they are being set up by whoever. Stores are cutting back on staff because of the recession therefore more pressure on existing staff working[/Quote]

 

Tell me about it! There is an unenviable workload on many shop staff and it is unlikely to get any easier. BUT, going back to point one, the Challenge 25 policy would (should) be at the forefront of staff minds when taking the purchase - in amny ways it should be as important as whether the customer is giving the correct money for the goods. Many stores (and I don't know which company is involved here) have checkout software which prompts the operator to accept to verify the customer age - Yes or No according to whether ID is required. If that is the case, then it should remove some of the room for oversight, however busy the shift is.

 

It is so unfair if Trading Standards or Mystery Shoppers are sent into store deliberately made up to look older than 25 in order to catch out poorly paid overworked staff on minimum wage.

 

Also perhaps that a lot of LA jobs are going on the public sector soon maybe Trading Standards or Councillor will not be able to spend our taxes on project like below mention in the future. [/Quote]

 

When TS started doing this there was an outcry over the entrapment aspect of the policy. I believe that in routine cases, the mystery shopper will normally be over 18 unless there is a history of customers being served underage and proof is needed in order to take action. The police for example may establish from underage drinkers where the alcohol was purchased, and how. Like it or not, antisocial behaviour is a big issue for Government, particularly that which is alcohol related, and proof is needed in order to take action against stores which contribute to the problem. Whilst individual staff may have an issue with the pressure of work affecting judgement, or that training has been inadequate, this would not be the concern of the licencing authorities.

 

Your friend's best approach is to challenge the opinion of those who think that he should have asked for ID and why. If the customer was 'obviously' over 25 then ask why others would not have agreed and what characteristics would lead them to think that the customer was below the trigger age level. If the customer was more obviously under the age of 25 then other mitigating factors for not verifying the age may come into play, but I wouldn't expect the 'I was too busy' argument to cut much ice.

[bonnygirl]

It is not my friend that was challenged it was the OP, but as my dad works in the industry and I am aware how difficult it can be for staff I made the reply. Saying that I have a friend that works in the same industry she step down from being manager as she did not want to climb the greasy pole any long. She was deprived of the yearly bonus last year due to chewing gum backstage, she also tells me that member of staff are now been handed out writing warning for very minor offences.

 

My dad is of a certain age and anyone that is 45 looks under 25 to him… LOL. Therefore everyone gets asked for ID but draws the line for customer nearer his own age of 67. In fact one customer was just a week over the legal age to purchase alcohol when ID was checked. To be safe always asked for ID when selling alcohol to customers.

You have given the OP good advice SW and the OP should argue the point you but forward. Also, as far as I am aware training is given to all staff in stores and then signs a form confirming that they understand it. If the OP’s friend was given training, which can be in a form of Q&A the staff member has to answer the question correctly. If this was not the case then he/she should have got more training. It was unfortunate that the OP friend did not asked for the customers ID as the consequences can result in written warning which can stay on their file for a year.

 

It seems that large organisations have no problems can clamping down on something that is going to affect them but do not give a jot about making minor adjustments for their staff that needs it.

 

Did anyone see Despatches Documentary last night where third world country working conditions are here in the UK, working for £2 to £3 pounds an hr for long hours in an dreadful conditions sewing garments for big well-known high street names!!

Edited November 9, 2010 by bonnygirl

[pinkdressinggown]

I have a priblem with the whole challenge 25 concept as whole.

 

My biggest point is someones 25 could be anothers 21 etc etc, the challange 25 concept is based on the opinion of the person who is challenging the customer, and therefore the outcome of the challange can not be measured due to the fact that your friends opinion of how old someone looks could be different from a that of her managers.

 

I find this happens often when I go to the supermarket, I can purchase a bottle of wine at he tills with my shopping with no question of ID (im in my early 20's) but yet get to the kiosk for cigerettes 5 minutes later and be asked for ID

 

I could understand some reasoning behind the investigation if your friend was serving customers with pigtails tied with pink ribbons, sucking a lollypop and wearing a school uniform!!! However unfortunatley not, I would find it quite interesting to see what the outcome of the investigation is and what "proof" her employers can produce if they would like to take there investigations futher

[Sidewinder]

Apologies Bonnygirl - I realised that I had addressed the response as if you were the OP - clearly that wasn't the case, but you raised some interesting points, as does pinkdressinggown

 

I have a priblem with the whole challenge 25 concept as whole.

 

My biggest point is someones 25 could be anothers 21 etc etc, the challange 25 concept is based on the opinion of the person who is challenging the customer, and therefore the outcome of the challange can not be measured due to the fact that your friends opinion of how old someone looks could be different from a that of her managers.

 

Absolutely correct - and for that reason, I can't see how disciplinary action could fairly be taken unless the customer was clearly (as in 'clearly to any reasonable person to be under the age of 25')

 

I find this happens often when I go to the supermarket, I can purchase a bottle of wine at he tills with my shopping with no question of ID (im in my early 20's) but yet get to the kiosk for cigerettes 5 minutes later and be asked for ID

 

I've seen this as well, and it highlights perfectly the issues of perceptions and judgement. No doubt the management would be interested in considering that sort of anomaly.

 

I could understand some reasoning behind the investigation if your friend was serving customers with pigtails tied with pink ribbons, sucking a lollypop and wearing a school uniform!!! However unfortunatley not, I would find it quite interesting to see what the outcome of the investigation is and what "proof" her employers can produce if they would like to take there investigations futher

 

Absolutely. I would be hard pressed to tell an 18 year old from some 16 year olds, and equally a 21 year old from a 26 year old sometimes. The employer should do nothing more than a retraining exercise unless there was an obvious failure in this case.