Compliance

Retailers described varying experiences in terms of being assessed for compliance after the MUP implementation deadline. Several retailers had not had any

experience of having been inspected at the wave two interview conducted some 5-6 months post implementation, but expected that an inspection of their prices was likely to happen in the future, possibly as part of routine annual assessments. Some commented that they were confident they would pass any inspection because they believed that they had priced everything correctly:

‘No, no-one’s come in yet. They probably will, with Christmas coming up.’ (Affiliated retailer, SIMD 3-5, wave two)

Other retailers in our sample had been inspected by licensing officers to check that their prices were not below MUP. The inspections appeared to have varied in scope and intensity, ranging from a selective inspection of certain product prices to a more thorough assessment of the full product range.

‘They come in, they scan your product and then if the price is over unit pricing, that’s fine. … They usually, like, ask you the price, how much are you selling this for, and you tell them. But with some stuff they, like…they tried to catch you out with some stuff. But they usually go for more ciders. They come scan it and see how much it’s going for. Or they just ask you, how much are you selling that for?’ (Affiliated retailer, SIMD 3-5, wave two)

‘Actually the council licence authority came round to check for the…every price of our…They actually…the cans and scan on the till because our till is digital so the price came in and they checked the prices and everything, yeah, unit pricing. Every product.’ (Affiliated retailer, SIMD 1-2, wave two)

Generally retailers took compliance seriously. Most perceived that the consequences of non-compliance – fines or loss of licence - were serious and not worth the risk. One also commented that any retailer who gained a reputation for selling below MUP could attract other customers expecting to be able to buy alcohol cheaply.

130

‘Would I risk selling it under the minimum unit price? No. I don't see how it would be beneficial, unless I had old stock to shift, for me, why would I want to do that? They can’t get it elsewhere any cheaper, so why would I? …I just genuinely wouldn't take the risk with it.’ (Non-affiliated retailer, SIMD 3-5, wave two) ‘[If] you sell somebody one thing cheap, word goes around and then you’ve got other people harassing you for it … you know, that kind of thing.’ (Affiliated retailer, SIMD 1-2, wave two)

However, some retailers speculated or insinuated that selling below MUP was likely to be taking place among other retailers, or commented that they had heard about it from their customers. It should be noted that the research was not able to verify these comments.

‘So if you have a regular customer who’s been coming to your store for many years, I'm sure you will help him out, yeah, in terms of that. … maybe assist them in one way or another. So, I mean, I can see that happening, yeah. Especially amongst the independent trade, yeah.’ (Non-affiliated retailer, SIMD 3-5, wave two)

‘I heard feedback from some customers... some of them [other retailers] are cutting down their prices and selling it underhand.’ (Affiliated retailer, SIMD 3-5, wave two)

Although retailers who described knowing of such practices generally distanced themselves from them, one did admit to similar activity. This particular retailer explained how he sometimes sold Frosty Jack’s below MUP to regular customers. He commented that ‘everyone else’ was also breaking the rules, and that this was a service solely for good customers who were ‘friends’:

‘Like I said, it’s [Frosty Jack’s] still being sold. … sometimes I break the rules; just to keep my customers happy, but I’m still making a good profit margin…. The people I do supply to is people I trust and I know, and it’s only about four

131

people; that’s just because I know them and who they are. I see them more as friends than customers.’ (Non-affiliated retailer, SIMD 1-2, wave two)

This was the only instance of intentional non-compliance spoken about by any of our sample of retailers. One admitted to unintentional non-compliance, in one case because they had not properly checked the prices of certain wines, and in another instance when they had bought price-marked products at a particular wholesaler which had been priced for England at below the minimum unit price.

In the context of discussing compliance, some retailers also commented on what was perceived as tighter restrictions on alcohol sales to non-licensed customers at wholesalers, which they perceived was associated with the introduction of MUP. They described how, previously, non-licensed customers had been able to buy from wholesalers with a ‘trade card’, benefitting from the same wholesale prices as licensed retailers. They welcomed a clamp-down on this practice as it prevented those without an alcohol licence from benefiting from below MUP wholesale prices.

‘[Named wholesaler] has been greatly affected by it, aye, and so has [other named wholesaler] – I think all the wholesalers that used to supply to non- alcohol retailers are now struggling to do that; if you don’t have a personal licence or a premises licence you can’t buy alcohol from the wholesalers.’ (Non- affiliated retailer, SIMD 1-2, wave two)

132

4.5 Retailers’ perceptions of the impact of MUP on sales