To what extent are businesses allowed to deny sales/services?

nigel_wilson

It's probably one of the few things I remembered from Business Studies in the Leaving Cert; any business can deny the sale or service of a product so long as it doesn't fall under discrimination which can fall into a grey area.

I understand that even obvious things like products that don't have statutory age limits (alcohol, cigarettes) or controlled substances (pharmaceutical products) can be refused sale at the discretion of the shop.

These cases seem rare but when it happens, does a shop have to prove that it doesn't fall under discrimination? Are there any notable examples?

L1011

nigel_wilson wrote: »

These cases seem rare but when it happens, does a shop have to prove that it doesn't fall under discrimination? Are there any notable examples?

Only if a case is taken against them.

The grounds of discrimination are pretty clear cut except age - a lower age limit is generally acceptable but an upper one not.

Additionally, businesses have been fined for refusing service to members of the travelling community despite insisting that wasn't the reason why and they were. Haven't heard of this happening recently however.

Victor

The vendor / service provider doesn't have to provide an explanation at the time, but they do have to provide an explanation (which can't be discriminatory).

There may be commercial reasons to do something that would otherwise be discriminatory, e.g. a foreign national looking for a bill-pay phone.

L1011 wrote: »

The grounds of discrimination are pretty clear cut except age - a lower age limit is generally acceptable but an upper one not.

It's more nuanced than that, e.g. a youth or old age discount can be offered, but the full acts need to be read.

amtc

So how does this relate to placing customer limits? I'm not talking about promotional offers on alcohol etc. But during the recent fidget spinner craze a Blanchardstown store had a hand written 'strictly one per customer'. I couldnt figure out the business rationale for it!

Xterminator

one customer buys 20. next 19 customers are disappointed.

as a business you don't want 19 disappointed customers.

Its a retailer not making a quick buck.

Del2005

amtc wrote: »

So how does this relate to placing customer limits? I'm not talking about promotional offers on alcohol etc. But during the recent fidget spinner craze a Blanchardstown store had a hand written 'strictly one per customer'. I couldnt figure out the business rationale for it!

It's also a method of stopping the person who owns a small shop buying up all the stock and then reselling it for a profit. Usually big retailers can sell for less than a independent retailer can purchase from a distributor, which is why the below cost alcohol sales is a red herring, so it's cheaper for the independent retailer to bulk buy from a big retailer which would mean that the big retailer has no product for their own customers.

rubadub

amtc wrote: »

during the recent fidget spinner craze a Blanchardstown store had a hand written 'strictly one per customer'. I couldnt figure out the business rationale for it!

They also might get other things sold along with the spinners, just like newsagents selling lotto, bus tickets or tobacco, there is not much money in it but they might buy a bar along with it. It also possibly gets the shop mentioned by people telling friends where they got theirs.

Some will have age limits on things which are not legally required. e.g. dealz and 2euro shops might not sell butane gas as kids inhale it. I think dealz had an over 21s sign for vibrators!

Victor

Of course, one can also deny customers for cause - e.g. someone showing up in dirty overalls wanting to be served in a fancy restaurant.

rubadub wrote: »

Some will have age limits on things which are not legally required. e.g. dealz and 2euro shops might not sell butane gas as kids inhale it. I think dealz had an over 21s sign for vibrators!

That might not be legal.

nigel_wilson

Victor wrote: »

Of course, one can also deny customers for cause - e.g. someone showing up in dirty overalls wanting to be served in a fancy restaurant.

That might not be legal.

I would have thought it is, particularly involving chemicals like drain cleaner. I don't believe there's a minimum age limit on buying it, but it's completely understandable why a shop would deny the sale of a deadly substance like that to teens.

ban resistant recalcitrant debutant

Head shops voluntarily apply an over 18s rule. Some sex shops may also do that. Extreme sports companies may apply an upper age limit on things like heli-skiing or bungee jumps.

On the issue of a restaurant refusing a customer due to dirty clothes. It seems the clothes you're wearing aren't a ground for discrimination so any business could refuse service based solely on the clothes and the fact that they don't serve people in those clothes.
What about a painter with dried paint on his clothes. The clothes don't contaminate other surfaces and so they're not dirty as such, just stained.


Refusing to sell drain cleaner to teenagers. Is it legal?
That would appear to be discrimination to me, even if your cause if good or noble.


Three block Irish businesses on the internet under their adult policy for anonymous customers. Three block Irish gardening websites which cater to indoor gardeners. Three demand to see your ID in order to undo the block which is a contravention of the Data Protection Act.
Three are refusing to allow Irish indoor gardening websites, like Dublin Indoor Gardening, to be accessed using Threes internet services when you're an anonymous customer.
Are those Irish businesses rights being infringed?
I don't think internet service providers should be free to choose what websites their customers can access.


My point about Three and about companies not selling drain cleaner to children is that you might have a laudable goal in some peoples view but you could still be breaking the law. I'm almost certain that Three aren't permitted to interfere with Irish businesses simply because Three don't approve of the products they sell.

Victor

ban resistant recalcitrant debutant wrote: »

Refusing to sell drain cleaner to teenagers. Is it legal?
That would appear to be discrimination to me, even if your cause if good or noble.

Assuming the person is under 18, it is discrimination, but legal discrimination.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2000/act/8/enacted/en/print.html

(3) Treating a person who has not attained the age of 18 years less favourably or more favourably than another, whatever that other person's age, shall not be regarded as discrimination on the age ground.

ban resistant recalcitrant debutant wrote: »

What about a painter with dried paint on his clothes. The clothes don't contaminate other surfaces and so they're not dirty as such, just stained.

But paint, especially paint drops can take days to dry. Someone wearing painting clothes would give a proprietor reasonable apprehension that their furniture would be damaged.

ban resistant recalcitrant debutant wrote: »

Three block Irish businesses on the internet under their adult policy for anonymous customers.

It is important to note that the Equal Status Acts protect individuals, not businesses.

ban resistant recalcitrant debutant wrote: »

Three demand to see your ID in order to undo the block which is a contravention of the Data Protection Act.

Presumably they only ask to see ID showing one is over 18, they don't retain details of that ID.

ban resistant recalcitrant debutant wrote: »

Are those Irish businesses rights being infringed?

I can't see how. Under what provision are they being infringed?

ban resistant recalcitrant debutant wrote: »

I don't think internet service providers should be free to choose what websites their customers can access.

I don't think the Three policy is unreasonable.

ban resistant recalcitrant debutant wrote: »

I'm almost certain that Three aren't permitted to interfere with Irish businesses simply because Three don't approve of the products they sell.

Bus they allow (certain) customers to access those websites, so that interference / approval argument is limited.

ban resistant recalcitrant debutant

Not selling drain cleaner to under 18s.
How does the shop know you're under 18?
Can they demand to see ID?
Can they be reckless and refuse to serve people who look 25 on the basis that they might not be 25 and they might only be 17?
Shops can only demand ID if there is a legal basis for the demand, a laudable goal is not sufficient.



Victor, you presumed that Three do not take photocopies of IDs. You were wrong. Three don't just ask to see your ID, they take a photocopy of it. I have raised that issue with them, they refuse to address it. When a bouncer asks to see your ID he merely observes it and gives it back to you. Three take a photocopy. That is a clear contravention of the Data Protection Act in my view.
What's the purpose of the copy?
How does taking a copy of an ID assist you in determining a persons age?
What is Three's explicit and specific reason for taking a copy?
Those answers aren't available from Three and because of that the DP act hasn't been complied with.
I can speculate to the reason. Three don't trust their own staff to do this check properly.




It doesn't matter that Three allow some people to visit websites which sell gardening products. They unreasonably interfere with other customers.
I never said they unreasonably interfered with everybody, just with some people.
My point was that they have no right to interfere with anybody.
What they're doing on the internet is equivalent to them standing in carparks of businesses asking for ID and refusing to allow customers to enter shops if they refused to show ID.
Three have no right to interfere in third party businesses simply because they don't approve of the products for sale.
Indoor gardening sites are selling perfectly legal products which have no age restrictions. Why are Three interfering with them?
What gives Three the right to make judgement calls on third party businesses?

Specifically, the businesses have constitutionally protected property rights which Three are interfering with. I have attempted to purchase from these companies and have been frustrated by Three.
Those companies aren't even aware that their websites cannot be accessed using Three services.

ohnonotgmail

ban resistant recalcitrant debutant wrote: »

Not selling drain cleaner to under 18s.
How does the shop know you're under 18?
Can they demand to see ID?
Can they be reckless and refuse to serve people who look 25 on the basis that they might not be 25 and they might only be 17?
Shops can only demand ID if there is a legal basis for the demand, a laudable goal is not sufficient.



Victor, you presumed that Three do not take photocopies of IDs. You were wrong. Three don't just ask to see your ID, they take a photocopy of it. I have raised that issue with them, they refuse to address it. When a bouncer asks to see your ID he merely observes it and gives it back to you. Three take a photocopy. That is a clear contravention of the Data Protection Act in my view.
What's the purpose of the copy?
How does taking a copy of an ID assist you in determining a persons age?
What is Three's explicit and specific reason for taking a copy?
Those answers aren't available from Three and because of that the DP act hasn't been complied with.
I can speculate to the reason. Three don't trust their own staff to do this check properly.




It doesn't matter that Three allow some people to visit websites which sell gardening products. They unreasonably interfere with other customers.
I never said they unreasonably interfered with everybody, just with some people.
My point was that they have no right to interfere with anybody.
What they're doing on the internet is equivalent to them standing in carparks of businesses asking for ID and refusing to allow customers to enter shops if they refused to show ID.
Three have no right to interfere in third party businesses simply because they don't approve of the products for sale.
Indoor gardening sites are selling perfectly legal products which have no age restrictions. Why are Three interfering with them?
What gives Three the right to make judgement calls on third party businesses?

Specifically, the businesses have constitutionally protected property rights which Three are interfering with. I have attempted to purchase from these companies and have been frustrated by Three.
Those companies aren't even aware that their websites cannot be accessed using Three services.

in what way is it a breach of the data protection act?

ban resistant recalcitrant debutant

Three have no purpose to take the photocopy, or alternatively, if they do have a purpose, they refuse to disclose it.

Either of those situations is a clear breach of the act.

Surely you don't think a bouncer could take photocopies of all IDs he observes?

Three occasionally do give a purpose but the purpose is not valid. Three say they have signed up to a voluntary code and they claim the voluntary code requires them to seek ID.
The problem for Three is that they chose to sign up to the code, and they choose to impose the voluntary code on their customers, it is not required by law, and because of that, Three cannot impose it on their customers.
Three have no legal purpose in asking for your ID.

Three are interfering with Irish businesses in a way which isn't moral or legal. Three refuse to discuss this issue. I consider them cowards because of that and I'm entitled to my opinion.

ohnonotgmail

ban resistant recalcitrant debutant wrote: »

Three have no purpose to take the photocopy, or alternatively, if they do have a purpose, they refuse to disclose it.

Either of those situations is a clear breach of the act.

Surely you don't think a bouncer could take photocopies of all IDs he observes?

Three occasionally do give a purpose but the purpose is not valid. Three say they have signed up to a voluntary code and they claim the voluntary code requires them to seek ID.
The problem for Three is that they chose to sign up to the code, and they choose to impose the voluntary code on their customers, it is not required by law, and because of that, Three cannot impose it on their customers.
Three have no legal purpose in asking for your ID.

Three are interfering with Irish businesses in a way which isn't moral or legal. Three refuse to discuss this issue. I consider them cowards because of that and I'm entitled to my opinion.

your post is just a mess of contradictions. first you say they wont disclose why they take a photocopy then you say it is because they have signed up for a voluntary code. can you point to the provision in the data protection act that they have violated in taking a photocopy of your ID?

ban resistant recalcitrant debutant

Companies must have a legal purpose for seeking personal information. The most basic provision of all.

ohnonotgmail

ban resistant recalcitrant debutant wrote: »

Companies must have a legal purpose for seeking personal information. The most basic provision of all.

and you have said they do have a purpose. there need not be a statutory basis for that purpose.

ban resistant recalcitrant debutant

Making up a reason isn't legal.

There does need to be a statutary basis for data requests if you're claiming the requests are required by law.

Claiming that data requests are required by law when they're not is a serious breach of the DP act, specifically the requirement to be fair and honest and perhaps other breaches as well.


If data requests aren't required by law then the reason the data is required must be explicitily stated. Three refuse or fail to do so. That refusal or failure is a breach.

ohnonotgmail

ban resistant recalcitrant debutant wrote: »

Making up a reason isn't legal.

There does need to be a statutary basis for data requests if you're claiming the requests are required by law.

Claiming that data requests are required by law when they're not is a serious breach of the DP act, specifically the requirement to be fair and honest and perhaps other breaches as well.


If data requests aren't required by law then the reason the data is required must be explicitily stated. Three refuse or fail to do so. That refusal or failure is a breach.

if they have refused to do so how do you kow they need it to comply with a voluntary code?

if you feel you are correct feel free to make a complaint to the DPC.

ban resistant recalcitrant debutant

I do feel free to make a complaint to the Data Protection Commissioner.

I wasn't waiting on your permission and I feel it is very arrogant for you to offer your permission.

Three staff members have lied to me and have said that Three are required by law to see ID before the un-restrict the internet. That is a lie and I have said as much to their staff members. They then retract the lie.

Is it a breach of the DP act for a front line staff member to provide incorrect information?

Three contradict themselves and different staff members give different answers. Three fail to respond to my written enquiries.

prinzeugen

ban resistant recalcitrant debutant wrote: »

Not selling drain cleaner to under 18s.
How does the shop know you're under 18?
Can they demand to see ID?
Can they be reckless and refuse to serve people who look 25 on the basis that they might not be 25 and they might only be 17?
Shops can only demand ID if there is a legal basis for the demand, a laudable goal is not sufficient.

Not 100% sure on Irish law, But they can (or could) refuse to sell certain hazardous household chemicals to under age persons in the UK.

Its been a few years since I did my COSHH training.

nigel_wilson

prinzeugen wrote: »

Not 100% sure on Irish law, But they can (or could) refuse to sell certain hazardous household chemicals to under age persons in the UK.

Its been a few years since I did my COSHH training.

I think in Ireland it would go on the basis of 'common sense'. Though I assume there's no specific law that puts responsibility on cashiers or businesses like is done in the pharmaceutical industry regarding OTC pills (codeine, paracetamol), anyone selling drain cleaner would be expected and possibly held liable for not using their intuition to tell that someone is sketchy.

I have heard from a friend that when he was shopping in Galway a while back, a rugged almost homless looking man tried to buy 5 packs of caustic soda and was subsequently questioned for a long time. Eventually they only allowed him to buy one and not any more from their store until three weeks had passed.

Victor

prinzeugen wrote: »

Not 100% sure on Irish law, But they can (or could) refuse to sell certain hazardous household chemicals to under age persons in the UK.

Its been a few years since I did my COSHH training.

They are allowed refuse sale under the Equal Status Act. It will depend on other legislation as to whether they are required to check for age.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2000/act/8/enacted/en/print.html

(3) Treating a person who has not attained the age of 18 years less favourably or more favourably than another, whatever that other person's age, shall not be regarded as discrimination on the age ground.

GerardKeating

ban resistant recalcitrant debutant wrote: »

Three have no purpose to take the photocopy

But they would have a reason to keep a copy, would they not need to be able to prove that they asked for (and got) suitable ID...

Victor

GerardKeating wrote: »

But they would have a reason to keep a copy, would they not need to be able to prove that they asked for (and got) suitable ID...

Prove to who? It's a weak reason.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Victor wrote: »

Prove to who? It's a weak reason.

Regulators. Of course they have to be able to provide proof.

Victor

Selena Fierce Weevil wrote: »

Regulators.

Which regulators. It's their own child protection scheme.