Simple way to make hosts' lives a misery

A regular item in my postbag is a complaint from a licensee that he has been the subject of a campaign by a single individual, usually a neighbour.

Encouraged in certain areas by local councils who provide 'easy steps' guidance to residents who wish to complain (in Westminster, they even have a special council officer to help you), it only needs one persistent voice to cause months of difficulty and misery for a licensee.

His happy customers, on the other hand, do not get a say in the process, unless some very positive action is taken.

This 'imbalance', as I see it, is to be encouraged even more by the current Government as it seeks to rebalance the Licensing Act in favour of the officials and the complainers, dressed up in the timeless catch-all phrase known as 'local democracy'.

However, one licensing lawyer recently regaled me with a case of his in north London when just a single complaint resulted in the revocation of a licence — although I suspect that even in these tyrannical times there has to be more to that than meets the eye.

The interesting aspect of such events is the role that the council's own licensing officer plays in the scene. The licensing officer is a council employee, not an elected member. He is answerable to the licensing committee, but may well be employed in an overall department such as environmental health.

He does not only deal with alcohol licensing but may also be responsible for street trading, taxis and even zoos, all of which have their own licensing systems that are not identical to alcohol and entertainment. He (or she) therefore has a wide range of legislation to contend with and any changes in the law have to be noted and followed. It is not easy.

Coupled with this is the detailed administrative role that this officer takes, including what might be called 'judicial' decisions on these complaints from residents. For the statutory Guidance issued under the Licensing Act makes it clear that a decision on whether a complaint from a resident is "frivolous or vexatious" and therefore not acceptable should be made by the licensing officer and not by the members of the committee.

Representation​

It should be noted here that this judgement does not apply to any representations from responsible authorities such as the police or environmental health departments, whatever one's views on the merits of their objection.

In Westminster, for example, the environmental health officers simply put in a general representation to any variation that "it is likely to impact on the licensing objectives" — rather like standing in front of the ball when a free kick has been awarded.

They will only retreat if the applicant satisfies their subsequent requirements, which in my experience are not always directly connected with the application in question.

But in the case of residents, the licensing officer must decide whether the objection has been put in on specific grounds or is just a whinge at the pub, or the result of an altercation between the licensee and the person involved.

This is meant to filter out not only irrelevant matter, which is not covered by the licensing objectives, but also "vexatious" or repetitive complaints merely intended to cause trouble for the premises.

Currently, the term "interested party" covers not only residents and other businesses but elected members of the council, who may object to licences, but may be subject to a veto by their own officer. The new Government proposals will put the local council itself in the role of a responsible authority, so that they can raise objections directly without such possible interference.