Getting the measure of it

Putting together a code of practice, as I commented last week, is clearly not as easy as it looks, especially if you are a civil servant with only a vague grasp of the licensing laws.

A more detailed look at the new revised draft throws up a couple of anomalies that are going to be hard for the trade to comply with. Chief among them is the requirement to have multiple measures for alcoholic drinks consumed on the premises.

While it would be possible to make it obligatory to have a 125ml measure available for table wine (to avoid pubs only using 175ml and 250ml), there is a legal problem with also requiring both 25ml and 35ml measures for gin, rum, vodka and whisky.

The current weights and measures law only allows the use of one or other of those measures "which must be the same throughout the premises". If a trading standards inspector finds a mixture of measures, the licensee can be prosecuted. This is to avoid short measure for people expecting the larger quantity. So the regulations would have to be changed to accommodate this idea, and it would be extremely expensive for the licensed trade to have both measures for popular pouring brands on Optic behind the bar.

Also, why no mention of the famous third of a pint measure for beer or cider? Surely this minimal quantity aids responsible drinking and is still a legal measure. It is used regularly in some outlets for speciality beers and should not be overlooked. Mandarins take note!

The other misconception involves clubs with a premises certificate. The Home Office lads think that such premises have a designated premises supervisor (DPS). They do not. The obligation to have a single individual responsible for supervising the premises was never included for clubs. It is assumed that the committee takes on this role.

There is also no requirement for the steward or other person in charge of the bar to have a personal licence. It is also the case that clubs of this kind do not actually "sell" alcohol, but I suppose the civil servants can be forgiven for not picking up that subtle difference.

The measures issue is one that I think would gain the support of trading standards officers, who could pop in for a quick "third" on their way home from the office and could then claim it on expenses as a test purchase!

Q&A​

Change of address

Q. I have advised some of our company staff to instruct the designated premises supervisors (DPSs) that they must notify the relevant licensing authority for the premises if they move house, as well as their own personal licensing authority. This is not generally known and I would welcome your views on why this has been missed.

A. It is not quite as cut and dried as you suggest. In fact, the responsibility for notifying the licensing authority for the premises licence of this change of address principally rests with the holder of the premises licence. I would assume from what you write that this is a managed operation, and the DPS would, therefore, be on the payroll. It is quite true that there is an obligation on the DPS, as a personal licence holder, to notify his "home" licensing authority so that it can amend its records for his personal licence. But the updating of the premises licence is a responsibility that rests with the licence holder, who in this instance is not the DPS.

It is true that under the terms of the Licensing Act, the DPS "may" advise the authority of his move and then notify the company that he has done so. But the main legal obligation is placed on the company in this instance to notify the change, so that the premises licence and its attendant records can be altered.

Under the relevant section of the Act, the only person guilty of the offence of failing to notify this information is the licence holder. No prosecution can be brought against the DPS for failing to report this change, although possibly failing to supply a copy of the notification might be.

So it should be (and in most companies usually is) a requirement for an employee to notify the company if he moves his home address, if it is not at the pub. That information should then form the basis of a notification letter to the authority in respect of the licence.

A question of numbers​

Q. How many people can hold a premises licence at once?

A. There is no specified limit. Although only two spaces are provided on the application form for individuals and only one for partnerships or other joint ventures, it is clear from all the wording that several people can join together in an application where required.

Under the old system, there could be a number of licence-holders and there was no intention to create a limit under the new law, even though licences have been split between individuals and premises. But there may be good reasons why a number of people wish to hold the licence at once.

Clearing own litter​

Q. Outside our pub is a cobbled courtyard owned by the pub but used as a walkway by people passing through. We have been advised that a neighbour has complained about cigarette butts being left in this area, which is by its nature difficult to clean thoroughly. Can environmental health take action over this complaint?

A. There is clearly a lot more to this story than comes out in a simple question. Since the introduction of the new licensing laws, litter outside premises has become something of an issue, although in my view it has nothing to do with licensing as such. It can, in certain circumstances, be an environmental health issue, but from your description it does not appear that there is any real merit in this complaint.

There is, however, no point

in just reacting negatively. The area belongs to the pub, so there is no suggestion that the pub is causing an environmental nuisance on the highway.

I assume that it is smoking customers who have caused this. Why not place suitable cigarette bins outside and also make it known to customers that you do not welcome the littering of the cobbles in this way? By these means you can turn a possibly unwarranted complaint into something positive in favour

of the pub.