The riddles of the new Licensing Act
There is no doubt that the Martians, if they landed, would find it difficult to believe that we could operate to the letter of our licensing laws. They would wonder whether we were really such a "civilised society" after all.
Of course, that's assuming they can read!
What is emerging now, a year after the start of the new laws, is how selective they are. For example, you may well be refused a Temporary Event Notice (TEN) if you are half a day late with your application, even if you have faxed it. However, in 15 months of applying for TENs, I have never yet had one returned by any council within the statutory period required under the Licensing Act.
What can I do? Nothing. They are beyond the law. Welcome, Martians!
Then there is the vexed question of the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) who has no specified role under the Act, yet everyone has to have one. The ONLY specific obligation on the DPS is to exist. Without him (or her) you cannot sell alcohol.
Do they have to be there? No. We have established that. Do they have to make any application, or is there any licensing form which only the DPS must sign (apart from his or her consent to be appointed)? Again, no. There is nothing unique about this being. He or she is a creature of statute - not even included in the White Paper. The DPS just appeared.
It is true that the DPS is described in exam papers and the like (but not in the Act) as "the first port of call" for police or other officials if something goes wrong. But my experience is that they discuss the issues with whoever is in charge of premises first. After that, they might ask for contact details for the DPS (not noted on the licence summary) which the staff ought to have available. So the first that many a DPS will know of a problem is via a phone call.
Clearly, if you own the pub and run it yourself, you are likely to be the DPS. But if a problem occurs while you are away, it is likely that the police will deal with it on the spot, and if an offence is involved, they could well charge the personal licence holder who was there at the time, or another member of the bar staff who they allege committed the offence in question.
None of this is detailed, of course, in the Act itself. The Act does not specifically state that the DPS is responsible for the running of the premises and ultimately carries the can. In fact, in terms of the licence and its review, it is the premises licence holder who stands firmly in the firing line.
Yet the actual absence of a DPS, as is written on all licences, spells the end of sales of alcohol. Technically, if someone leaves a pub company employment, and is therefore unable to fulfil the DPS role any longer, at that moment the pub must go "dry".
In fact, sometimes it doesn't.
I have certainly noted several examples of premises continuing to operate in the
"vacuum" between the departure of one DPS and the appointment of a new one. Even though there is provision in the Act for an instant replacement procedure, the large amount of paperwork and details involved seem to mean that this undertaking is beyond the scope of some company HR departments and their lawyers.
What is also interesting is that an aggrieved dismissed DPS can make life quite difficult for the company by firing off a resignation letter to the local licensing authority, alerting them to the fact that there is a missing element on the licence. If the company bosses are not on the ball, they could face instant closure.
