Please do not take away our licence, was the cry. We put all the blame on bad management and the new person will make sure everything is OK.
In every case, of course, the ‘bad manager’ was not there to put his point across, having been sacked or moved. So he was found guilty in his absence, but it did not really affect him directly.
Now, a similar situation seems to be occurring with the designated premises supervisor (DPS) under the review procedure in the Licensing Act 2003. When there are problems at a pub, a review is increasingly seen as a way of putting things right, of examining the circumstances and suggesting ways or conditions which might improve things.
At least, that’s the theory. But unfortunately, a number of licensing authorities see it as a process of punishment, putting the operating company in the dock and issuing sanctions for the offences which have been brought to their attention.
In fact, it is the magistrates who should be handing out punishments, not the licensing committee. But listed among the ‘remedies’ under the Licensing Act when a review hearing is held is the replacement of the DPS. And that appears to be a popular solution for both committees and, it must be said, operating companies.
Far from supporting their own staff in a tricky situation, some pubcos might think that sacrificing the DPS is a price worth paying for continuation of the licence. The last thing they want is the alternative of a suspension or even removal of the licence entirely. So they might even make the change in advance of the review hearing, and then stand up and say exactly what area managers have been saying for decades.
So this is why I always advise the DPS in such a situation to put in a representation of his own. There is nothing in law to prevent this: the DPS has as much right to comment on the situation as anyone else. And if he happens to put to the committee that the problems stem from a failure of top management, rather than his own, then so be it.
