- Morning Advertiser >
- Forums >
- News Article Comments >
- Licensee fined for flouting smoking ban
News Article Comments : Licensee fined for flouting smoking ban
- Thread is open
- View Article
25 Posts(s) found for this thread: Now displaying page 2 of 3
| Author Name | Opinion | Reply |
|---|---|---|
Ken Nason 20/02/2008 21:17:43 |
RE: Licensee fined for flouting smoking ban Nicola, they may not have taken the lease from the Pubco it may have been an assignment and therefore they have no claims against the Pubco. Information before accusation.
ken Nason This post replies to Nicola Francey > RE: Licensee fined for flouting smoking ban |
|
| J Mark Dodds 20/02/2008 23:20:49 |
RE: Licensee fined for flouting smoking ban Interesting point Ken, I'd not thought of that either but I reckon Nicky's advice still stands in principle - Nikki needs as strong a case to explain her current position as possible - for talking to the PubCo as well as anyone else. And if it were an assignment where does the PubCo fit in on figures then? Presumably the PubCo should have a responsibility to verify barrelage doesn't it? Or if they know one tenant's failing and see another potential one coming along who's got some cash to put in why stop that happening? "not witholding reasonable consent?" Maybe she's not even with a PubCo. This post replies to Ken Nason > RE: Licensee fined for flouting smoking ban |
|
Joe McAlinden 21/02/2008 00:02:34 |
RE: Licensee fined for flouting smoking ban It needs everybody to stick together and then we will be able to do something about it you must remember we voted for these people and we can turn that around as well , come the next general election and thats from someone who has never smoked but allways voted labour, ( but never will again ) This post replies to this thread |
|
| John Baker 21/02/2008 16:00:06 |
RE: Licensee fined for flouting smoking ban I received a phone call from Mark Hughes yesterday. He told me that he'd contacted his local council pleading for help with policing the smoking ban as he could not do it alone and needed their help. He was told it was his responsibility to police the ban, and his alone on his licensed premises. If he did not police the ban he would be in serious breach of his duty under that law and could be in trouble with the EHO! So, there you have it! Publicans are completely alone when it comes to maintaining your livelihood. Unless of course you stick together and fight back. John H Baker Secretary F2C This post replies to this thread |
|
| Alan Thompson 21/02/2008 20:39:30 |
RE: Licensee fined for flouting smoking ban John The article says he was smoking in the bar himself, and hadn't displayed the signs at entrances. This seems at odds with your account, doesn't it? Or did he want the EHOs to stop him smoking himself and to put the signs up for him? Alan This post replies to John Baker > RE: Licensee fined for flouting smoking ban |
|
| Bill Gibson 22/02/2008 11:00:48 |
RE: Licensee fined for flouting smoking ban http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=517455&in_page_id=1770&ito=newsnow This post replies to Alan Thompson > RE: Licensee fined for flouting smoking ban |
|
| John Baker 22/02/2008 13:42:40 |
RE: Licensee fined for flouting smoking ban Yes Alan, I understood this. He is a smoker and took a chance on having a crafty ciggy on his premises. I assumed that his call to the council was tongue in cheek to provoke the answer he probably new he would receive. The fact still remains though that publicans should not have to police the smoking ban and, at the very least, councils should police the smoking ban themselves. This post replies to Alan Thompson > RE: Licensee fined for flouting smoking ban |
|
| Ken Nason 22/02/2008 14:00:26 |
RE: Licensee fined for flouting smoking ban MArk. If the lease is on an assignment then the deal is between the existing tenant and the purchaser. If the purchaser is misled by the seller by his giving incorrect or misleading figures then he has redress through the courts.
The pubco has no part of the deal except as far as under the terms of the lease to rubber stamp the change as landlord, and this would not streach to verifying figures. If asked the Pubco will supply only data they can verify such as rates payable, products they have supplied and rent chargeable.
It is unfortunately the old story of buyer beware.
Your quoted phrase refers to the landlord having very little grounds to stop someone assigning their lease and I think it says the landlord cannot unreasonably withold conset.
It all comes back to Pubco picking and choosing where and when they get involved in their "partners" business. This only seems to happen when it is advantagous to the Pubco.
ken Nason This post replies to J Mark Dodds > RE: Licensee fined for flouting smoking ban |
|
| Ken Nason 22/02/2008 14:02:40 |
RE: Licensee fined for flouting smoking ban John, "should not have to police the ban"? John they do not have to police the ban it is there in the legislation regardless of what the councils petty autocrats think.
ken Nason This post replies to John Baker > RE: Licensee fined for flouting smoking ban |
|
| Alan Thompson 22/02/2008 14:38:41 |
RE: Licensee fined for flouting smoking ban John, you said " Yes Alan, I understood this." So why did you post about this particular case, because he hasn't been penalised for not "policing" the ban. Alan This post replies to John Baker > RE: Licensee fined for flouting smoking ban |
|
