RRFSO and the licensing act

[zimmy]

We have been discussing the above relationship with a view to making representations to the Licensing Authority, on the grounds of public safety, if on receipt of an application for a premises licence, there is no risk assessment attached. Clearly there is no requirement to produce one as part of a licence application but it could be argued that public safety has not been adequately considered if a RA under the RRFSO has not been produced. Any Opinions?

[kurnal]

If there is no risk assessment why mess about with the beaurocracy of the licensing Act to get things done?
Why not simply use your powers under the RRO?
It would be interesting if your representations were ignored or the licence issued despite your representations!

The licensing Act was supposed to be more flexible and cheaper than the old regime. Its turning out to be more expensive and hugely inconsistent. I advise clients to streer a straight course and to do everything right- but am then undermined by the inconsistent system where some local authorities will grant a licence even if most of the aplication form is left completely blank- eg the box in which the applicant states how they will comply with the licensing objective of public safety. Then theres the other side- like the jobsworth who rejected an application for a corner shop selling wine and beer because the plan did not show the area designated for children!

[Reg]

Would it be too simplistic to say that the RRFSO has not been enacted yet.  We won't have any powers until October.  In the mean time we could always use the WPR.

[wee brian]

An application for a licence suggets that the building is not being used for that purpose yet - in which case you cant really do a proper Risk Assessment.

However if you are dealing with a licemsed premises and you have had a series of problems with the operator then you could object to a renewal of the license.

[jokar]

Why bother with the Licensing Act?  FRS have powers under FPWL and to come RR(FS)O.  Use your own legislation and you will be better placed to enforce anything that may need to be done.  After all, numbers of people have driving licences but cannot drive and vehicles have MOT's, and some of them are unroadworthy.  If LA are allowed to issue licences without FRS input then perhaps they will consider the application a touch more carefully.

[Martin Burford]

Kurnal.............I would be interested to know how you can use the powers of the RRO, when it does not come into force until 01/10/06
Conqueror.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

Any representation to a licence made by the fire authority (deemed as one of the responsible authorities under the licensing act) is done so under the workplace regs at the moment........ even if a premises does not employ 5 persons, they still have to prove they maintain the means of escape and fire precautions surely?

The good thing with the fire safety order is that any premises, which has by virtue of a licence, will have to have a written fire risk assessment.

I wonder how many small licenced premises will be compliant to that article come October!

[fred]

We have been discussing the above relationship with a view to making representations to the Licensing Authority, on the grounds of public safety, if on receipt of an application for a premises licence, there is no risk assessment attached. Clearly there is no requirement to produce one as part of a licence application but it could be argued that public safety has not been adequately considered if a RA under the RRFSO has not been produced. Any Opinions?

The limited (if any) involvement of the Fire Services in the drafting of the Licensing Act (I think it was considered to be of little interest because the RRO was coming in ......!!!!)  and the sheer number of applications received - and the limited powers Local Authority have to refuse an application, has put the Fire Authority in an awkward situation.  

There are so many  holes in the Licensing Act (from the Fire Authorities position) it would quickly sink if thrown in at the deep end - and that's not a bad idea.

What we do have is the WPFL if anyone is employed - and if their application is poor (from our point of view) they go to the top of the list for a visit - if no one is employed then we just have to wait till October - unless you have time to spend on a Hearing and a Representation etc etc

If action (or lack of it) by the law makers ties the hands of the good guys .... well I guess you get my drift.

[kurnal]

Conqueror
I assumed that zimmy was taking a forward look since he mentioned RRO in his posting.
As Fred points out  small premises that do not employ 5 persons are a problem at the moment as a representation is probably the only input a fire authority can have short of a notice under the fp act or the workplace regs.
The problem with this is that many applicants dont even bother to write anything in the one inch box on the form provided for them to explain how they propose to meet the licensing objective of public safety. So unless heavy enforcement is justified, the licensing representation is probably the only option forthe FA to influence standards in these small premises

[Martin Burford]

Thanks kurnal............as long ago as the 80's my then fire authority. used the Licensing Act 1964 very satisfactorilyas I did the Mag. Courts work.........finding that was the best vehicle to use, working on the theory "they". the applicant wanted the license.. and would do almost anything to obtain magistrate consent.  Of course a different ball game now under local authority control.....another mistake by Prescott.......  thanks for your informed response, again!
conqueror

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

The problem with this is that many applicants dont even bother to write anything in the one inch box on the form provided for them to explain how they propose to meet the licensing objective of public safety.

Thats because it's usually their solicitor doing the paperwork on their behalf.

Any application that has no entry in the public safety box is returned requesting the information.

[kurnal]

Baldyman
I wish that were the case.
From experience I could name 3 licensing Authorities who have issued licences without anything being written in the box at all. In fact I did a risk assessment at licenced premise on Tuesday, thet showed me the licence and all assocciated paperwork so I know its a fact.
I know that the necessary protocols have been agreed by the Authorities involved just as you say- but it does not always  happen. Probably because of the burden of workload or inexperienced staff-  I dont know.

[zimmy]

Thanks for all your replies.... As a matter of interest, I made representations to the LA over a pub/restaurant that had no fire alarm. The pub company challanged the representation on the grounds that under the WPR, we already had the means by which to enforce a fire alarm. They also argued their case over the two in a bar rule, which although not carried over into the 2003 Act, by stipulating that they would restrict the live music to 2 performers, were therefore maintaining that nothing had changed.

We won the hearing before the Councillors on the basis that 1. the two in the bar was written into the 64 Act and clearly implied musicians comprising a fiddle and a penny whistle!, but I pointed out that if Kylie and Robbie were your two performers, the anticipated audience would be a little different. The other point that the Councillors accepted was that under the WPR, we only had the right to require a risk assessment regarding the employees and to stretch it to the punters was a tenuous link. It was therefore accepted that to ask for a type M alarm was reasonable in the case, and the 2 in the bar rule was irrelevant. There was no appeal.

This process was reletively straightforward and not particularly time consuming. It therefore seemed appropriate to make representations to the LA in the case of no RA under the RRO, as they would simply not get a licence if we went to the hearing and simply stated that they were not complying with the law. I'm sure that the Councillors would make it a condition of the licence that the RRO was complied with.

It helps that our LA automatically set up a hearing if there were challanged representations...maybe they are not al the same.

Thanks again

[kurnal]

You make a very interesting point zimmy. It sounds straightforward and a way of getting something done if you become aware of a problem as a direct result of receiving a licensing consultation. But not of much practical use at other times, such as if you come across the problem after the licence has been granted. I bet the licensing authority would not be so helpful then!

It also goes against the basic philosophy of how the licensing Act was supposed to work. And the licensing conditions are supposed to be specific- I dont think it would be possible to tie conditions to other laws as you describe.  You can have your licence provided you also comply with the VAT rules? Cant see the tax man needing to use this as a form of enforcement so why should the fire authority?

[Big A]

How does the panel think that Article 43 (Suspension of terms and conditions of licences dealing with same matters as this Order) is going to affect things?