Asked for date of birth and postcode when ID'd at supermarket - is this normal?

[me123]

Relating to alcohol rationing - my wife's elderly aunt (80+) was in Aldi stocking up on the gin supplies recently. She was told at the checkout that she couldn't buy more than 6 bottles in a single transaction. Her reply: that's OK, my husband is in the next aisle with another 6, and then we're going to come back for more at different checkouts!

Could be to do with an offer that was on at the time. Sometimes, supermarkets limit the offers to so many per customer so that you don't simply stock up when the price is low and then sell it on/horde it until it's back on deal again. I know that, in Morrisons (Scotland) at the moment, we have bottles of spirits for £13 a go; but it's restricted to three bottles per customer for that reason.

It's not (necessarily) to do with the quantity of alcohol; as far as I'm concerned you can buy the whole wine aisle as long as you have a valid method of payment!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However, I don't see why a customer purchasing age-restricted products should be asked to confirm their postcode. If a customer used a fake ID, then surely that customer could use a fake postcode. It's highly unlikely the cashier would write it down and enter the postcode on Google maps just to verify it!

Most people who use fake IDs actually find an older friend and borrow the passport or driver's license (or PASS card) to pretend their older than they are (rather than buying a counterfeit driver's license on the black market).

The reason we sometimes ask (I don't know of anywhere that does it routinely; I've only done it a couple of times when the photo on the license/passport looks quite a bit different from the customer) is that, if they are "borrowing" ID, they're less likely to have remembered the postcode or their friend's DoB. It's not fool-proof by any means, but it probably has caught people out in the past and potentially saved the operator a fine.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That is the old fine; £80 Fixed Penalty for the operator
This no longer applies, as it is a personal licence

AIUI, for supermarkets the license holder is the store manager who has directly authorised me to sell alcohol. It's in his/her name, so they are ultimately responsible and I still get my £80, but the holder gets the 5k.

I probably should know that; but I don't
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

At the stores where I work the records show about 60% alcohol, 35% tobacco (predominantly cigarettes), and 5% medicines

I don't know for us, but I know we get quite a lot of the medicine ones (possibly we've breached that before; I honestly don't know), and we've also been caught out once or twice with 15 rated DVDs.

Morrisons are very strict now, following on from quite a few incidents in the past few years in various stores, so I imagine that most of the alcohol ones go unnoticed by us peons on the shop floor. In fact, I know one person on the other side of Glasgow got caught out once, and we all had to sign a declaration to remind us to ID under 25s!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The maximum is not 2 packs, but 32 tablets
However, pharmacists can still supply up to 100 tablets without prescription (the boxes are clearly marked "pharmacy size")
This is a pointless law, as the customer can take 32 leave the premises put them in their car, then go back and purchase another 32

Thankfully, I don't work in a store with a pharmacy. Sometimes, pharmacy only products get through the tills in these stores.

AIUI, 2 packs is the law (but there are AIUI limits on how much can be put in a packet to simplify things; 32 pills sounds exactly right, but it all depends on the concentration and the specific drug) for over-the-counter sales. That said, we may just say 2 packs to simplify things further (so that there's a straight forward rule for analgesic sales).

And it's not a pointless law. I'm sure I saw somewhere that, after the law was enacted, the number of suicides by OTC analgesic overdose was dramatically reduced. So, if it works, great!

 

[87 027]

Could be to do with an offer that was on at the time.

I think it was. Just illustrates that to all intents and purposes it's unenforceable in a large store with many checkouts and a determined customer!

 

[43167]

Nothing wrong in what happened. Just the person on the check out doing their job properly as they dont want to risk an £80 fine & loss of their job.

I work in the off-licence trade & having heard of colleagues mine in other stores fail test purchase's, I dont blame him/her for asking a couple of questions in just making sure.

 

[me123]

I think it was. Just illustrates that to all intents and purposes it's unenforceable in a large store with many checkouts and a determined customer!

It is totally unenforcable. That said, there's been a couple of extreme cases when we've kept an eye on the customer to make sure that they don't simply go round in circles. I did have a customer last week who openly admitted that he was buying 200 jars of hot dogs (BOGOF) to stock up his convenience stores(!). If I'd allowed that, he'd have been able to sell them off cheaper once the offer was over and undercut us. It's a rare case when they admit such a motive, but we did keep an eye on him!

We have made reasonable concessions in the past; most notably for Easter Eggs, we've allowed nursery teachers to buy enough for their class since they explained the reason to us.

 

[jon0844]

Relating to alcohol rationing - my wife's elderly aunt (80+) was in Aldi stocking up on the gin supplies recently. She was told at the checkout that she couldn't buy more than 6 bottles in a single transaction. Her reply: that's OK, my husband is in the next aisle with another 6, and then we're going to come back for more at different checkouts!

Did they care about that?

I mean, if they were really trying to restrict the sale (sometimes Tesco will restrict items on offer to simply give more people a chance of getting stock) they could have easily refused to serve them on ANY tills and there's nothing they could have done - except moan and walk out shouting that they'd never shop there again.

 

[Tom B]

I remember trying to buy two packets of paracetamol and two of ibuprofen once - the reason being I keep one packet of each at home, and one of each in my bag. The cashier refused the sale as I had too much in one transaction, but was happy for me to buy two then come back around with the other two a minute later...!

 

[jon0844]

I think it was. Just illustrates that to all intents and purposes it's unenforceable in a large store with many checkouts and a determined customer!

Well if you tell them you're going to do it then it gets a little easier to enforce. You simply have the person in charge of overseeing the tills telling staff not to sell any more to that person.

The shop always has the upper hand as they can ask you to leave at any time.

Now the question is, would they do it? I've heard stories about the likes of Tesco doing it - and they know that shoppers may say 'screw you then, I'm going to switch to Asda/Sainsburys...' but probably don't want to stop shopping at that store.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We have made reasonable concessions in the past; most notably for Easter Eggs, we've allowed nursery teachers to buy enough for their class since they explained the reason to us.

If you were to go to a large store and ask in advance, could they specifically order in for a single customer? By doing so, your order of 30-40 Easter Eggs (how big is a class size these days, maybe it's 100-200 ) doesn't affect stock for other customers anyway.

 

[ukrob]

I've always wondered if they ensure that the young people look older than they are, or if they are chosen literally randomly? It would be very easy to pick the ones that look older, to catch people out...

That is correct, they will specifically choose someone aged one year under the limit that looks older than that

That is wrong.

They must (and do) use people who "look their age" (a degree of subjectivity of course), they must not use people who "look considerably older or younger than their true age to the majority of people".

 

[me123]

That is wrong.

They must (and do) use people who "look their age" (a degree of subjectivity of course), they must not use people who "look considerably older or younger than their true age to the majority of people".

They generally expect retailers to comply with a TASK 25 scheme nowadays, so realistically anyone aged 17 who looks anything up to 25 years old could be used! Of course, it's all subjective, that's why they ask us to ID anyone who appears to be under 25. What appears to be 25 to me may only appear to be 18, 19, 20 to a Procurator Fiscal.

But I have heard that test purchases can be overturned if an inappropriate test customer is used (for example, a 17 year old who could be said to look about 30 - and before you all start, I know at least one person who falls into this category!).

 

[ukrob]

They generally expect retailers to comply with a TASK 25 scheme nowadays, so realistically anyone aged 17 who looks anything up to 25 years old could be used!

Task 25 etc is not a trading standards law, so test shops do not apply, it would purely be an internal matter for the retailer if for example a 23 year old was not id'ed.

But I have heard that test purchases can be overturned if an inappropriate test customer is used (for example, a 17 year old who could be said to look about 30).

Which is exactly the reason why they use people who 'look their age' .

 

[me123]

Task 25 etc is not a trading standards law, so test shops do not apply, it would purely be an internal matter for the retailer if for example a 23 year old was not id'ed.

It's not law, but it's a widely used system within stores. Even then, I've never heard of anyone being penalised internally for not complying with such a policy.

As I've said (although I did edit my post just after posting it), what is 25 to me may appear younger to someone else. And vice versa. And, of course, you've got the annoying conundrum that young people want to look older and old people want to look younger!

So, realistically, we have been told that anyone who appears to be up to the age of 25 (but is aged 16-17) can and will be used for test purchasing.

(Incidentally; there's been talk of a compulsory TASK 21/25 scheme in Scotland under proposed licensing laws. I wonder if they would or even could do test purchases with 20 year olds to make sure that they are asked for ID?)

 

[ukrob]

It's not law, but it's a widely used system within stores. Even then, I've never heard of anyone being penalised internally for not complying with such a policy.

That is what I was saying - but I didn't phrase it very well. It would be purely for the company to deal with, if they wished to do so.

So, realistically, we have been told that anyone who appears to be up to the age of 25 (but is aged 16-17) can and will be used for test purchasing.

They won't be. Like I have said, only people who look their age will be used. You are opening all sorts of cans of worms if you start deliberately using young people who look much older. A case for entrapment could be made, and if I recall correctly, there has been one (successful) case of this in the past. Of course though, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the retailer being cautious and asking for ID from people they think look under 25 or whatever.

 

[9K43]

I have my own data protection act.
No names, no phone numbers, post codes et al .
ASDA have no power to request sweet FA, and supermarket security people are just wannabe jobsworths.
Just the same as private parking companies.

 

[ukrob]

I have my own data protection act.
No names, no phone numbers, post codes et al .
ASDA have no power to request sweet FA, and supermarket security people are just wannabe jobsworths.
Just the same as private parking companies.

They have the power to refuse to serve you if you don't offer what they ask for though.

 

[Greenback]

Any store can refuse to serve anyone for any reason, as long as it is not discrimination!

 

[ukrob]

Any store can refuse to serve anyone for any reason, as long as it is not discrimination!

Indeed, that was my point

Nor does a reason need to be given.

 

[me123]

Any store can refuse to serve anyone for any reason, as long as it is not discrimination!

Exactly correct. A store can implement a policy where ID is required for all transactions should they want to (although I reckon you'd lose a lot of sales that way). In fact, I'm sure there's nothing to stop a store refusing service to people wearing red shirts on Tuesdays should they want to (although, once again, it wouldn't be something that would go down very well).

Interestingly, Morrisons stores (at least those in Scotland) are now hiring people as test purchasers for the TASK 25 scheme. They pick someone who's over 18, but looks under about 21, to make sure that we're enforcing the policy. Obviously, there's no legal ramifications, it's just an internal thing to check that we're asking.

 

[jon0844]

I bet the staff will have a good laugh at you (after you've left, of course) if you do start to say that you're not going to show ID as it's a breach of your human rights or something!

All they want to know is your age, and I doubt they'll give a **** about who you are.

 

[me123]

I have my own data protection act.
No names, no phone numbers, post codes et al .
ASDA have no power to request sweet FA, and supermarket security people are just wannabe jobsworths.
Just the same as private parking companies.

Ah, you're one of those people who don't like to give ot their personal information. I used to work in a call centre, and I dealt with people like you all the time.

We had to ask for name, full address and DoB to confirm that we're speaking to the account holder. This helped to ensure that the account details were kept safe and, if we sent out engineers to your house, it helped ensure their safety (as they had been put at risk in the past). Anyway, I was very often told that it's not my right to request this information. It makes no difference anyway, as I'm sitting staring at it on the computer screen in front of me!

What did we do? End the call, and report suspicious activity on the account.

And I think you'll find, for age restricted sales, if there's any doubt as to your age, the retailer is perfectly entitled to make sure that they're selling the product legally and can refuse the sale.

 

[Greenback]

I really have doubts that asking for DOB when working at a call centre is necessary or worthwhile. What doe sit actually prove? I have always known the DOB's of everyone living in my house, even as a student I was well aware of housemates birthdays!

The idea that it is to comply with the Data Protection Act is, in my opinion, flawed. The act only requires that organisations take reasonable care not to pass on personal information to a third party. I believe, and the Information Commissioner seesm to back this up, that asking if you are speaking to xxxxx is sufficient - I believe the offence is knowingly giving out personal information.

Of course, companies can choose to have any policies and procedures they like when phoning people up. If someone phoens me and wants my DOB, they don't get it. If my account was then reported for soem reason, I would have no hesitation in making a formal complaint to the relevant watchdog, the company itself and would find a new supplier!

 

[jon0844]

I think people misunderstand what the Data Protection Act is about too; it's about protecting information and access to it, but at the same time, many businesses are entitled to get and ask for information - in accordance with its own rules and protection.

So, if you're speaking to a call centre then they would be expected to have information relating to you and your account. Indeed, many organisations are entitled to record information about a person if they are to visit them for any reason - are they dangerous, for example. That company would have a duty of care to protect other staff, for example. If a company doesn't tell staff that they're visiting a council tenant that is known to have behavioral problems and staff must attend with a police officer present, then they're likely to land themselves in very deep trouble if something happens.

Many businesses don't understand it and think they have to keep ALL information private, leading to ridiculous situations where a customer can't get anything done because the operator says they can't give out information (even after confirming details) because of Data Protection. That's nothing more than an excuse, and one that is being used more and more - and it's bloody annoying. Of course, you can't argue the fact with an operative working in a call centre so you end up getting nowhere. (Advice: stop doing business with them).

 

[Zoe]

I would expect many stores to ask for ID when buying matches even though it's not illegal to sell them to anyone under 18.

 

[talltim]

My wife got asked to prove she was over 18 to buy a pork pie in Spar. The computer said so. They let her off

 

[Aussie_Rail]

In my experience, people at the counter ask for post code etc because they are doing a survey on behalf of head office to see where people are coming from when they visit their store and if they see that there are a high number of people coming from a particular area, then they will look at that and see if its viable to open an outlet in or nearer to that area.

But, its been a long time since I was asked for my post code, but it doesn't mean it happens often though.

 

[me123]

I really have doubts that asking for DOB when working at a call centre is necessary or worthwhile. What doe sit actually prove? I have always known the DOB's of everyone living in my house, even as a student I was well aware of housemates birthdays!

The idea that it is to comply with the Data Protection Act is, in my opinion, flawed. The act only requires that organisations take reasonable care not to pass on personal information to a third party. I believe, and the Information Commissioner seesm to back this up, that asking if you are speaking to xxxxx is sufficient - I believe the offence is knowingly giving out personal information.

I was always told to verify three separate pieces of information to confirm that we were speaking to the correct person. Usually; name, full address and DoB. If DoB wasn't available, I would often ask for their PIN number for their TV set or how they paid their monthly bill. All information that I had in front of me.

The reason was because, from time to time, we would have to give out some information (such as a TV PIN number, resitting the PIN number, or billing information) that is potentially sensitive. Obviously, we would under no circumstances give out bank account details (other than the name of the bank and/or the last couple of digits of the account number if requested) or credit card details.

But it was also for our engineers' safety. There had been a number of incidents when our engineers had been put at risk, so it was our job to make sure that all call outs were genuine. I don't know if this was particularly effective, but if it keeps people happy it's going to be worthwhile.

I know fine well I probably spoke to imposters. I can think of a number of cases where a woman pretended to be her husband and vice versa ( :roll: ), and they obviously were caught out, but guys pretending to be other guys could get away with it easily provided you had personal details.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My wife got asked to prove she was over 18 to buy a pork pie in Spar. The computer said so. They let her off

I remember once at work the Daily Mail had an age restriction of 18 because it had a free DVD in it. I asked someone for ID, and they thought it was for idealogical reasons :roll:.

(Although, to be fair, it really should have an age restriction on it...)

 

[9K43]

Ah, you're one of those people who don't like to give ot their personal information. I used to work in a call centre, and I dealt with people like you all the time.

We had to ask for name, full address and DoB to confirm that we're speaking to the account holder. This helped to ensure that the account details were kept safe and, if we sent out engineers to your house, it helped ensure their safety (as they had been put at risk in the past). Anyway, I was very often told that it's not my right to request this information. It makes no difference anyway, as I'm sitting staring at it on the computer screen in front of me!

What did we do? End the call, and report suspicious activity on the account.

And I think you'll find, for age restricted sales, if there's any doubt as to your age, the retailer is perfectly entitled to make sure that they're selling the product legally and can refuse the sale.

You are way off, you surmise that I would give my phone number, no one gets my phone number, so you would not be ringing me.
Once you give out the phone number companies use it, sell it on, and pester people for double glazing et al.
If my bank wants to speak to me, they can write a letter
Then if its junk mail it has a 10 second shelf life in my house.
Thats as long as it takes to shred it.
If a shop does not want to serve me that fine and dandy ,as I will vote with my feet and do without, and not use the place again.
Who are you to say something is wrong with an account if they object to you wanting personal information.
What Act of Parliament gives you this authority to mark an account as such?

 

[me123]

I should have mentioned that it was an inbound call centre, for broadband technical support, so you'd be calling me

We used telephone numbers to ensure that it's the correct broadband account (an account number could also be used, but it was not always readily available). I think you'll find that most broadband companies have their customers telephone numbers for obvious reasons, as well as their name and address. Date of Birth is recorded to help us comply with the DPA (A typo in the phone number could bring up the wrong account, so checking name, address and DoB ensures we have the correct account) and helps us ensure that we're talking to the account holder.

The information stored is obviously personal, that's why we check to make sure. PIN numbers for the TV is something we obviously store, but in the wrong hands that could be used to add quite a lot of additional content onto someone's bill. So we need to make sure (as much as we can) that, when a customer resets their PIN number, it is the account holder.

Then, the most sensitive information is the billing information. It was not uncommon for a customer to ask how they are paying their bill (which account, which card, etc...). Of course, we need to make sure that it is the account holder speaking. Even then, we only gave out generic account information (eg, "your last payment was made on a Mastercard" or "the account for your direct debit is held with Clydesdale Bank").

As for marking an account, it's an internal thing. No act of parliament is required for this. Given that it's our own account, when someone calls us and is unable to verify that they are who they say they are, we end the call and report this suspicious activity. This means that it's been recorded that there's been an attempted breach of security on the account so that, if they call back, the next person knows what's just happened. It didn't affect broadband at all, it just meant we were a bit more careful with information. (And it stops people calling back two minutes later and trying their luck again).

All of this is to ensure that your personal details are kept safe, and all data was managed and stored under the DPA.

 

[jon0844]

You are way off, you surmise that I would give my phone number, no one gets my phone number, so you would not be ringing me.
Once you give out the phone number companies use it, sell it on, and pester people for double glazing et al.
If my bank wants to speak to me, they can write a letter
Then if its junk mail it has a 10 second shelf life in my house.
Thats as long as it takes to shred it.
If a shop does not want to serve me that fine and dandy ,as I will vote with my feet and do without, and not use the place again.
Who are you to say something is wrong with an account if they object to you wanting personal information.
What Act of Parliament gives you this authority to mark an account as such?

Businesses are perfectly entitled to keep information on customers (not sure that they need an Act of Parliament to do so!), and as you say - you can "vote with (your) feet and do without".

You are entitled to request, perhaps paying a small fee, to access that information held by you - and get them to change incorrect information - but that's it. If you've been paying late, are known by the police to be violent (in the case of a business where an engineer may visit you) then that can, and should, be on file.

And, while I wrote this, me123 has given an even more detailed example of why information is held - and how a company will attempt to verify you are the right person.

 

[Greenback]

I think it's different when you are calling someone - I accept that the employee needs some way to verify who they are talking to.

What I, and, I suspect 9K43 object to are the organisations that ring you at home, and demand you to verify YOUR identity, often before they have said who they are! In those cases, how do you know who has rung you?! I haven't asked for their call, I don't want and they can **** off as far as I'm concerned!

 

[GB]

I agree with the above. Unless I have intiated the phone call then I will normally just hang up when I get calls asking for my details, after all, the caller may say who they are but I have no way of making certain that is true.

On another note, you will not find me giving out my pin or password to anyone for anything, especially over the phone...even if the bloke on the other end is who he says he is and has it on file somewhere.