Poor timing on TENs

The temporary event notice (TEN) system has had its critics. It is seen as inflexible and unfriendly by some users, while local authorities sometimes claim that it is abused by the trade to tide premises over when there is a licence problem, and that public nuisance cannot be raised as an objection.

But for the most part, councils have stuck to the difficult notice period - stated in the Licensing Act as 10 working days, but interpreted by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) as 11: you cannot count the day of delivery, apparently.

I disagree with this interpretation, but no one has taken the issue to the Administrative Court on appeal because it is such a minor matter.

However, there is another problem which I do think needs sorting out, because it is so clearly unfair. Section 102 of the licensing Act, dealing with TENs, states in section 102, Acknowledgement of Notice:

1. Where a licensing authority receives a temporary event notice (in duplicate) in accordance with this Part, it must acknowledge receipt of the notice by sending or delivering one notice to the premises user:

a) before the end of the first working day following the day on which it was received, or

b) if the day on which it was received was not a working day, before the end of the second working day following that day.

One of my colleagues acts for a major organisation in London that runs entertainment. He applied in good time for a TEN - 14 working days in fact- and at the same time sent a copy to the police.

Silence.

His assistant phoned to find out what had happened. She was told that there was a "pile" of TENs on someone's desk and they would get round to them in due course. The week before the event, she phoned again. The acknowledged TEN would be in the post that evening.

More waiting. Finally, the day before the event was to take place, the notice arrived, signed and dated two days earlier, but with an accompanying letter which was dated the day after receipt by the authority, a fortnight earlier.

The letter contained various warnings to the premises user, including one stating that the signed notice had to be displayed prominently at the event or kept at the premises and made available.

As the event was due to be held on a Saturday, the notice had to be sent by courier direct to the premises in order to comply with the Act's requirements, adding to the expense of the whole exercise.

This particular local authority is not alone in its failure to comply with the Act. There seem to be very few who meet the time limits laid down in section 102, mainly because there is no sanction against them.

So much for the "accountability" preached by the authors of these new laws. How on earth can these backsliding councils ever be taken to task?

To judge from the letter sent out by West-minster which accompanies all (late) TENs, you would think that every applicant was at fault in some way.

Six days after receipt, the acknowledgement arrives advising you that if you fail to send a copy to the police, the event will be declared invalid. Yet the police must object within 48 hours of receipt - time which elapsed four days before the letter was actually sent.

I remember being with a group of local authority people at the time the Bill was published who laughed incredulously when they read the timescale laid out above. At least they were honest.

Local government does not work like that. Its job is to hold everyone else to a time limit, but never achieve the deadline itself.