Trading Standards officers have seized 121 unsafe disposable electronic cigarettes from a shop in Aberdeen.
Vapes with fruit, mint and cotton candy flavours which look like highlighter pens and make-up products with a value of about £900 were taken in the seizure. The products were found to contain five times the legal level of nicotine liquid.
Officers from Aberdeen Council's trading standards service have visited stores in the city centre as part of a Scotland-wide project aimed at getting unsafe disposable vapes off sale, amid concerns underage children are accessing these products.
The Scottish government recently wrote to all retailers which sell these devices advising them to check their stock.
Nicotine inhaling products containing more than 2% nicotine or with more than 2ml of liquid are illegal to sell as they do not comply with UK safety requirements.
While the labelling guidelines for e-cigarette products mandate a UK-based point of contact for the company, the seized items did not meet this requirement, the council added.
Aberdeen Council said its Trading Standards service is contacting all distributors and retailers in the area to ensure that the law is fully understood and third parties take full responsibility for their actions, or potentially face a legal challenge.
“It was unacceptable that vapers are unknowingly risking their health by using these unsafe disposable products,” Graeme Paton, Aberdeen City Council Trading Standards manager, commented.
“Illegal and counterfeit products are flooding into the market and consequently pose a potential health risk to customers. Inappropriately branded products are also being purposely marketed towards children.
“Parents may not realise their children are vaping these unsafe devices - they are brightly coloured and closely resemble highlighter pens or make-up products. They cost from £5 to £7 each.”
Shops in the city centre have reported that they have never had to check the age of so many young customers as they are doing now and also said youngsters are trying to buy ‘Geek’ and ‘Elf Bar’ products by congregating outside shops on Union Street, trying to get adults to buy the vapes for them.
Any adult caught buying vaping products for underage teenagers face an on-the-spot fixed penalty of £200.
The upcoming “grocery tax” could hit hard-pressed Britons in the pocket, adding up to £56 annually to household shopping bills and costing families as much as £1.4 billion a year, state reports on Sunday (22) citing a recent analysis.
The scheme, known as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), imposes a levy on retailers and manufacturers for the cost of collecting and disposing of packaging waste, currently funded via council tax.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) on Friday (20) published a series of “base fees” to indicate how much food manufacturers and retailers will be charged under the scheme when it starts next autumn.
The highest fee of £485 a tonne will be charged for plastic packaging followed by “fibre-based composite” at £455 a tonne. The levy for paper or board packaging is £215 a tonne while materials such as bamboo or hemp will be charged at £280 a tonne.
The government’s impact assessment estimates the policy will cost the industry £1.4 billion a year and will drive up prices by between £28 and £56 a year for the average household, adding 0.07 per cent to inflation as retailers pass on most of the costs to shoppers.
However, the British Retail Consortium believes the levy, officially known as the “extended producer responsibility”, will cost about £2 billion a year. If all of this were added to food bills it would drive up the average household cost by £70 a year.
The scheme is expected to come into effect shortly, coinciding with rise in employers’ national insurance contributions and the increase in the minimum wage.
The measure, intended to hit the Government’s net-zero targets, has drawn criticism for inflating food prices and creating new red tape for businesses. Critics warn the measure will increase food costs for families while creating additional bureaucracy for businesses.
In a letter sent to Chancellor Rachel Reeves last month, the bosses of Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Morrisons, Asda, Lidl and Aldi implored her to delay the levy.
The letter said: “For any retailer, large or small, it will not be possible to absorb such significant cost increases over such a short timescale.
"The effect will be to increase inflation, slow pay growth, cause shop closures, and reduce jobs, especially at the entry level. This will impact high streets and customers right across the country.
“We are already starting to take difficult decisions in our businesses and this will be true across the whole industry and our supply chain.”
The levy was originally conceived by Michael Gove during his time as environment secretary but, after a backlash from Tory MPs, it was put on hold.
Labour has revived the scheme since coming to power. Secondary legislation passed this month will bring the scheme into legal force on January 1, 2025, with charges due to be rolled out later that year.
Local authorities, which will receive the funds from the levy, are under no obligation to reduce council tax rates once relieved of the costs of waste collection.
Ashton Primary School in Preston has teamed up with SPAR during the season of goodwill to donate delicious food to the city’s Foxton Centre.
The school’s Year 3 class enjoyed a cookery session baking pear and chocolate crumbles to take down to the Foxton Homeless Day Centre as a pre-Christmas treat for people who access its services.
Ingredients for the crumbles were supplied by James Hall & Co. Ltd and the children also received SPAR recipe cards to recreate the recipe at home with nutritional guidance from the University of Central Lancashire’s Dietetics department.
It is the second time that Ashton Primary School and SPAR through James Hall & Co. Ltd have collaborated on a project after a Pumpkin and Carrot Soup cookery session in October.
Norman Payne, Year 3 teacher and Deputy Headteacher at Ashton Primary School, said: “This has been a heartwarming project to be part of during the festive season. Learning how to cook is a valuable life skill and I know the children enjoyed the sessions.
“We are thankful to SPAR for their support with supplying the ingredients and the recipe cards, and it was lovely to be able to visit the centre which does a wonderful job of supporting homeless people in the city.”
Wilf Whittle, Trading Controller at James Hall & Co. Ltd, said: “After the Halloween collaboration with Ashton Primary School, it was a lovely idea to do something a bit more indulgent around Christmas while still utilising fresh and seasonal products with the pears.
“SPAR is a community retailer and we are very happy to support initiatives like this that give something back, particularly when there is an educational element woven into the project.”
James Hall & Co. Ltd is a fifth-generation family business which serves a network of independent SPAR retailers and company-owned SPAR stores across Northern England six days a week from its base at Bowland View in Preston.
Keep ReadingShow less
(Photo credit should read Leon Neal/AFP via Getty Images)
Cadbury’s has not been granted a royal warrant for the first time in 170 years after it got dropped from King Charles’s list of warrants.
Queen Victoria first awarded Cadbury with the title in 1854 which was then repeated by the late Queen Elizabeth II in 1955 who was a huge lover of the chocolate.
Following the decision, the look of Cadbury products is expected to be undergoing a significant change
Cadbury told The Sun, "Yes, practically this means that we will remove the Royal Arms from all of our packaging.
"However to be clear, there will be no change to the iconic Cadbury purple which is not by Royal appointment. Cadbury purple has been used for Cadbury chocolate products for more than a century and is synonymous with the brand, this won’t change."
The reason for sudden the removal of the royal title is not known but Cadbury is not the only company to lose such an endorsement.
Another big brand missing from the list is Unilever, which manufactures goods including Marmite, Magnum ice-cream bars and Pot Noodles.
Apart from Cadbury's and Unilever, 100 other companies had their title removed by the Monarch. Luxury chocolate maker Charbonnel et Walker Ltd has also been bumped from the list since the last under Queen Elizabeth II’s name in April 2023.
Those who have lost their warrants were told of the decision by letter, but not informed of the reason.
They have 12 months to remove any royal warrant-associated branding from their items.
The King released the list of the 400 companies that received his royal warrant this year, including includes 386 companies previously holding warrants bestowed by his mother, Queen Elizabeth II.
These range from the official 'suppliers of Martini Vermouth', Bacardi-Martini, to Command Pest Control Ltd, Dunelm for soft furnishings, Foodspeed for milk, Kellogg's for cereals, florist Lottie Longman, and McIlhenny as the official supplier of Tabasco hot sauce.
Each warrant is granted for up to five years at a time. The king first issued warrants in 1980, when he was Prince of Wales.
Some firms gained warrants for the first time, including those connected with Queen Camilla. They include hairdresser Jo Hansford and Wartski jewellers. The latter made the king and queen’s wedding rings when they got married in April 2005.
Plans to convert a vacant South Shields pub into a convenience store have been given the green light, despite objections from CAMRA beer campaigners.
South Tyneside Council’s planning department has approved an application for The Jolly Steward site in the borough’s Harton ward.
Plans from One Stop Stores Limited, a major retail convenience business, were submitted earlier this year in a bid to change part of the site at Fulwell Avenue into a retail use.
A planning application submitted to council officials described the site as a “vacant former public house” and noted the new development would create jobs, including three full-time employees and 10 part-time roles.
The development aimed to convert the pub into a retail shop with ancillary staff residential accommodation to the first floor, alterations to the building’s elevations, new ramp structures at entrances and a new air conditioning and refrigeration plant to the rear.
Proposed external alterations to the building included new windows, doors, ramps and signage, as well as “infilling” some windows and doors.
A total of 14 car parking spaces were also proposed, including three resident car parking spaces, two staff parking spaces and nine customer car parking spaces (including two disabled parking bays), along with four cycle spaces.
During a council consultation exercise on the plan, a single objection was submitted from CAMRA (Campaign for Real Ale) about the loss of the pub as a ‘community asset’ and campaigners said there was “no justification” from developers on this issue.
The CAMRA representation, included in a council report, added: “If running the Jolly Stewart as a public house is currently ‘unviable’ for the current owner, could it be viable for another operator?
“Change of use should only be considered once meaningful attempts to market this community facility as a going concern have been made, at a realistic market price, for a suitable length of time and following suitable consultation with the local community.”
A petition with seven signatories was also submitted to the council in support of the shop conversion proposal, describing the development as a “welcome addition to the wider community”.
The petition said that the proposal would “not result in a significant increase in traffic to the area due to the close walking proximity the shop’s location will provide”.
After considering the planning application and assessing it against planning policies, South Tyneside Council’s planning department approved it on 13 December.
Council planners, in a council decision report, said The Jolly Steward pub had “stopped trading and the land is no longer being used”.
Council planners noted the proposed shop would “serve a primarily local catchment” and that the gross floorspace proposed was “modest in size and reflective of the size of unit likely to be suited to a small convenience store serving a local catchment”.
The council decision report added: “It is considered that the sequential test is satisfied in this instance and that there would be no significant harm to the vitality and viability of the borough’s defined centres subject to a condition restricting the range of goods that can be sold from the premises to primarily convenience goods only.
“Furthermore, the proposal would result in the re-use of a currently vacant building and would provide social and economic benefits (such as additional jobs) to the immediate vicinity and wider borough.”
Council planners also said the plans would be acceptable in terms of design, highway safety and deliveries and that there would be no “unacceptable impacts on the amenities or privacy of the occupiers of any neighbouring properties.”
Under planning conditions, the development must be brought forward within three years.
Proposed opening hours for the shop at the site will be 7am-10pm, seven days a week.
(Local Democracy Reporting Service)
Keep ReadingShow less
Vino Convenience Store on Metheringham High Street
A shop in a village near Lincoln has had its premises licence revoked after police discovered an illegal worker being paid below the minimum wage.
Lincolnshire Police officers urged North Kesteven District Council’s alcohol and entertainment licensing sub-committee to revoke the licence for Vino Convenience Store on Metheringham High Street during a review on Tuesday (17 December).
The committee heard that management had been “operating in such a manner that amounts to criminal activity”.
Officers first carried out a compliance check on 21 March, where they found no evidence of a written policy to prevent alcohol sales to under-18s or staff training related to that policy.
Although management claimed in an email sent on 4 April, that outstanding issues had been resolved, a follow-up visit on 10 October, revealed otherwise.
Upon entering the store, officers questioned the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS), who stated she had never seen a policy or received any training and was, in fact, looking after the store “as a favour”.
Police then returned to the store a few hours later that day to find a male worker and inquired about his right-to-work status.
It then transpired that he was not allowed to work in that role and that he was paid around £600 a month with no payslip for working approximately 20 hours a week.
“Our inquiries found that he arrived in the UK under a skilled working visa in health and social care and had worked for a period of time in this field. But at the time of this encounter, he no longer worked for the sponsor and had no right to work in the shop,” a representative from the force said.
Mr Sureshkanth Arumugam took over the licence for the property in October 2023 alongside Thanusha Kaliyaperumal. Mr Arumugam is also listed as the license holder for two other businesses in the North Kesteven area – Ashgrove Convenience Store in Dorrington and Crescent Store in Leasingham.
In April 2023, officers visited the store in Dorrington, where they encountered a male behind the counter whose English was poor. Following this, checks were made with the Home Office Immigration Compliance and Enforcement team, which confirmed he was an illegal worker who could have been arrested.
This demonstrated how the illegal worker found at Vino Convenience Store was “not a one-off”.
Other issues found with the store in Metheringham included non-compliant age verification signage and alcohol seen on shelves with no price markings. Officers also insisted that “recent intelligence” has found the store is selling vapes to a 14-year-old.
Ian Holland, who attended the review in support of Mr Arumugam, stated: “I’ve known Suresh for about six years now and he’s always been an excellent man.”
He claimed that he has witnessed staff in the Leasingham store checking ID for restricted items and also highlighted how the licence holder was paying for the illegal worker’s rent and food, explaining why he was only being paid £600 a month.
Mr Arumugam claimed he believed the man had the right to work there but later admitted he had “made a mistake.” He also insisted he was “verbally training” staff in selling age-restricted items.