When sticking to rules isn't fair

An interesting debate has arisen as we approach the final stages of transition, and it concerns the situation with dismissed licensees.

Most of you will be aware that if you are applying for a premises licence in place of the existing justices' licence, there is a consent form to be signed by all those named on the existing licence, which allows the applicant or in many cases, the company to take over the premises licence.

There has now been a period of nearly 18 months since the last renewals of licences, and during that time a great many changes have occurred, not all of them pleasant. People may well have been sacked, or left under a cloud, or have failed to make a go of the pub.

They are not feeling altogether fond of the operating company or brewery and the last thing they feel like doing is a favour.

That's the problem. A favour it is, to put your signature on a form that gives you nothing. And some people, I hear, are refusing outright, or are suggesting a handsome fee for the privilege.

I do not suppose it occurred to companies that as soon as someone was relieved of their position they should immediately apply for a transfer, to get rid of them from the licence. The penny has now dropped, but there will still be some recent dismissals where there has not been enough time.

In the past, the licensing justices took a more relaxed view on this. As long as you notified the outgoing licensee of the transfer, then he was not obliged to turn up in court and 'consent to losing the licence.

But some licensing authorities are absolutely insisting that the signature is required, or else they will not accept the transition application. This has been applied not only to hostile ex-employees but also to people who have left happily and gone to run a hotel in Outer Mongolia.

That seems very unfair to me. If you can clearly show that the person has effectively left control of the premises to others, has ceased his employment and has no further interest in what is going on, he can hardly come back next year and accuse the licensing authority of acting illegally. This is especially the case if he has signified that lack of involvement by leaving the country for the intervening period.

This is yet another example of the 'new boys' in licensing playing it entirely by the rule-book, unlike the justices. It should have been anticipated by the Government, but alas, like much else, it was not.