Licensing@aol.com
Staff receiving a caution
QI have just found out that one of my evening staff was cautioned last month for serving someone underage. She didn't tell me, I was not on the premises at the time and I have received nothing in writing. Will it count against me as the holder of the premises licence in this new campaign? I have given strong warnings to staff and we have an incident book.
AStaff must not conceal an incident
involving police or local council officials from the premises licence-holder. Send or give a written notice to staff reminding them of their obligations and advising them that failure to pass on relevant information could result in discipline or even dismissal.
This incident could jeopardise your licence. The new "three strikes" law counts any incident of an underage sale, not just prosecutions, as a mark against the premises. So, although you were not present and may have used due diligence in advising your staff of the law, this caution does go against you for the next three months.
Two more examples of underage selling during this period could result in a separate prosecution of you as the licence-holder, with a possible suspension of the licence, or the issuing of a closure notice direct by the police or trading standards without court intervention, requiring you to close for up to 48 hours at a specified time.
While not obliged to give details of a
caution to the licence-holder if he or she is not present, police forces often talk to the holder or the DPS as a matter of policy.
Exemption for residents?
QYou state that persons residing on the premises may be sold alcohol outside the hours stated on the premises licence. I find nothing in the Licensing Act 2003 to support this and there appear to be no exemptions. I take the view that unless the premises licence specifically provides this exemption, it does not exist.
A I have shortened your letter and space does not permit me to go into all the legal arguments, but my view is still that this exemption from the general provisions as to "permitted hours" must carry over from the previous licensing regime, where it was expressly covered in the 1964 Act.
Licences converted directly without variation during 2005 will have retained the terms and conditions that previously applied, including concessions on
entertaining friends and on serving
residents at any time. These are directly related to the sale of alcohol, and therefore Schedule 8 of the new Act will have applied.
The difficulty comes with legal arguments over whether an application to vary a
licence, either during transition or
thereafter, "wipes the slate clean" insofar as conditions concerning permitted hours are concerned. This would mean that every applicant would have to re-introduce these concessions in his or her application to vary hours, and I do not think this has been done.
It therefore seems more logical to assume that the concession has carried forward and is unscathed by a variation application.
