Pub licensing: why increase TEN notice periods?

Of all the 'assumptions' contained in the coalition document on re-balancing the Licensing Act, the abuse of Temporary Event Notices is the least explicable.

Flying directly in the face of pressure from many sources to make TENs easier, the document even suggests that it should be made more difficult for existing licensees than for members of the public, on the basis that TENs are being used as a device for keeping premises open when they should be closed.

There is precious little evidence of this, and the recently-published government statistics demonstrate how rarely the police have objected to any of the 122,000 notices. Yet the licensed trade is once again in the firing line, with the proposal that the 10 working day period of notice should be extended for personal licence holders to one month (as opposed to a 15-day period for 'amateurs') and that licensees should have their available quote cut from 50 to 12.

How this will in fact improve the situation is not explained and is, quite frankly, baffling. The only people in the trade who can take advantage of the current 50 limit are outside caterers. As there is a limit of 12 on any one premises or area in the year, the extra allocation cannot effectively be used by an existing licensee on his own premises anyway.

I have spoken to many licence-holders over the past few months and not one of them has ever got anywhere near 50 notices and laughed when I suggested it.

What they want, which is what was previously suggested, was a cut-down in the 10-day period for unopposed notices, where the police were satisfied that the event was OK. This extension to one month simply means that they will not be able to respond to requests and will only use TENs even more rarely, except for pre-planned events or periods such as Christmas and New Year.

But why should members of the public have a better notice period deal than the trade? Under the old system of occasional permissions, they had to give a considerable lead time to the justices and had to come along to court to show they were running a proper event. All that appears to be irrelevant now.

Although no breakdown is given, I suspect that the 200 or so police objections during the year were mainly for 'amateur' events rather than trade ones. It makes no sense at all.

Q&A​

Longer time after insolvency​

Q.​ Can you tell us whether the government has got round to extending the time for an interim authority notice to be given after a company goes insolvent?

A.​ Yes, this took some time to appear, and in fact was buried away during the early part of this month, for some administrative reason.

The relevant Order was allegedly signed on 30 September and is now in force. It means that on the death or insolvency of an existing premises licence holder, there is now 28 days rather than seven for his or her administrators to apply to keep the licence alive.

Everyone felt that seven days was ridiculously short in either situation — the first because in the traumatic time after a death the last thing you are thinking about is the licence, and in the case of a sudden administration, it is very difficult to issue notices for a number of pubs (for example, with a company which is being transferred or sold off).

It means that as long as you notify both the licensing authority and the police within a 28-day period, you then have three months (rather than two) to apply for a full transfer of the licence. The existing licence is 'resurrected' from the time the notice is given, with the person giving the notice installed as the premises licence holder for the time being. The licensing authority is required to send out an amended copy of the existing licence, with the new name inserted as the holder.

In addition, where an interim authority notice has not been given, there is now a 28-day period for an application for transfer of the licence to be lodged. This was also previously seven days.

Change of shop use​

Q.​ There is an off-licence and general stores here which has changed hands a couple of times. The new owners have this year started putting out tables and chairs and serving meals and snacks, but say that people can buy alcohol from the shop and drink their purchases with the food. They have also had to apply for planning permission for change of use.

A.​ Clearly there are two issues here: one concerns planning use, which appears to be heading for retrospective consent, and one a licensing issue regarding consumption of alcohol on off-licensed premises.

If the current licence held by the shop does not cover on-consumption, which seems likely if the original application form was filled in with the OFF box ticked, then they would be in breach of the licence.

The remedy for them is to apply for a variation, to allow off sales to be consumed on the premises, which is technically allowable under the new law, although it was forbidden under the 1964 Act. Until that time, it should be a requirement that consumption of alcohol purchased in the shop is not allowed, because the existing licence does not cover it.

As far as you are concerned, you may not be able to prevent the conversion if the licensing committee decided to grant it, unless one or other of the licensing objectives was at stake.

TEN past midnight​

Q.​ Is it true that a Temporary Event Notice to extend your hours from 11.30pm until 1 am counts as two days? Surely it is only one evening? Under the old law, they used to count it as part of the previous day.

A.​ Not any more. The new system counts each period of 24 hours as a day, ending at midnight. This means that you will have used up two of your allocated 15 days this year on the one notice. It does not, however, count as two TENs, as it would technically do if it was New Year's Eve. In that case, you would 'lose' one of your 12 events for 2011.