The Licensing Act 2003 requires that a person be named and appointed as the Designated

Premises Supervisor (DPS) in order for a premises to be licensed to sell alcohol. A

Designated Premises Supervisor must hold a valid personal licence. The DPS is responsible

for ensuring that the 4 licensing objectives are upheld at the licensed premises and that any

conditions of the license are adhered to. Those objectives are:

• the prevention of crime and disorder;
• public safety;
• the prevention of public nuisance; and
• the protection of children from harm

The guidance (as amended) issued under the Licensing Act 2003 envisages a partnership

approach between the DPS and the relevant authorities such as police and local authority. In

the event of trouble or complaints about the premises e.g. rowdiness or loud music  it is the

DPS that these and other bodies will contact to identify concerns and hopefully agree a plan

of action at the licensed premises. Consider the following words from paragraph 4.20 of the

amended guidance:

The Government considers it essential that police officers, fire officers or officers of the

licensing authority can identify immediately the designated premises supervisor so that any

problems can be dealt with swiftly. For this reason, the name of the designated premises

supervisor and contact details must be specified on the premises licence and this must

be held at the premises and displayed in summary form.

For the DPS role to work collaboration and effective communication with the relevant

authorities is essential. In a recent case I observed while attending court a licensed premises

was appealing against the revocation of their license. The local authority had revoked their

license following a string of complaints from local residents of youth constantly crowding

outside the licensed premises, drinking and shouting and behaving in an unruly manner. The

licensed premises was a family run business and a relative acted as DPS. Unfortunately the

DPS was as said a family relative whose name had obviously been put forward at the time of

the licensing application. He did not in fact play any active role in the business visiting only

twice a week for about 4 hours in total to look over the books.

It was clear that the licensee was not taking their duties under the Licensing Act 2003

seriously as the ‘DPS’ did not even know he was the named DPS and counsel for the

licensing authority had to show him the licensing application to show he was so named!

Similarly, ample CCTV evidence of people crowding and drinking outside the licensed

premises was relied on as evidence of this premises’ failure to promote the licensing

objectives. Relations with police had also broken down and the DPS put the numerous

resident complaints down to a local press led conspiracy. My point here is that the licensed

premises cannot even hope to fulfil its obligations under the licensing regime if the DPS is

not switched on to his or her role. To do so an active and healthy relationship between the

DPS and relevant authorities such as police and the community at large is vital. Talk to the

police regularly. If they or neighbours raise concerns take them on board and ensure staff

employed within the licensed premises are made aware and trained how to respond.  For

example consider placing signs on the door reminding people how to behave once leaving

your premises out of respect for neighbours such as keeping noise down or not drinking

outside the premises.  Invite residents to feed back to you as DPS any concerns they have.

At least you get first wind of an issue with opportunity to correct it rather than hearing it for

the first time as a complaint to the police or local authority.

An interesting line of argument I have seen in several licensing cases is that the DPS feels

that any problems to do with the licensed premises are a police matter and further that once

people leave the licensed premises then what they do outside is nothing to do with the

licensee. Unfortunately the line of demarcation is not so easily or conveniently drawn. It is

common for a condition to be added to a license that the licensee publish a notice to people

leaving the premises after hours not to make noise out of respect for neighbours. In this way

the licensing regime places some responsibility on licensees for the behaviour of is

patrons once they leave the premises. If residents are disturbed by people arriving or leaving

a licensed premises they may well complain and no distinction is made (by them or the

licensing authority) as to whether they were technically on the premises at the time or

outside of it. The key is whether the licensing of these premises facilitates or undermines the

licensing objectives. As such we advise the DPS to take active concern with the impact that

visitors to their premises has on the surrounding area. Not only should the DPS ensure the

licensing conditions are adhered to they should report to the police any criminal or other

inappropriate behaviour on the premises to the police.

In the case of R (on the application of Khan) v Coventry Magistrates’ Court and another [2011] EWCA Civ 751 the licensee ran a local supermarket in Coventry selling groceries and

various other goods including beers, wines and spirits. The premises license was transferred to him after he took on the business. However, Coventry City Council, as the interested

party, applied to the licensing committee for a review of the premises licence on the ground that the licensee had been selling alcohol to persons under eighteen. Before the magistrates

court there was also evidence that two consignments of spirits had been seized on which duty had not been paid and of a complaint by a local resident that the shop was receiving large

deliveries of alcohol from the back of a van at strange hours several times a week. The Court of Appeal later held that the magistrates were entitled to admit the additional evidence but

the case is also a vivid example of conduct which could justify revocation of a license and is also an example of where the DPS role has clearly failed: the magistrates had  upheld the

decision to revoke the license on the bases:

(i) that the appellant had breached a fundamental section of the Licensing Act;

(ii) that he had a poor understanding of the Act and particularly of the role of the licensee, the designated premises supervisor and the licensing objectives; and

(iii) that the management of the premises was such that there was a real likelihood that crime prevention measures in the vicinity and the aim of protecting young persons from harm

would be undermined by his holding a licence.

Dubious action and inaction by the licensee and its DPS led to the revocation of the license. The reality is that the DPS must assume some form of policing role of the licensed premises

and liaise with the police and licensing authority where necessary. The DPS should make sure he/she is fully aware of the conditions on the license and ensure they are adhered to. If

there is suspect conduct at the premises or conduct which is of nuisance value to residents the DPS should ensure it does not take place at the premises and if necessary report it to the

police. If the DPS turns a blind eye or waits for complaints to be made then the licensed premises are on the back foot in the event of an application to revoke the license. A proactive

and engaged DPS is key to ensuring maintenance of the license and in turn survival of the business.

Brown and Co Solicitors advises and represents licensees on all licensing matters including representation before Licensing Committees and Magistrates Courts. We can also bring judicial review proceedings. For an initial consultation call us on 0203 468 0924 or email at enquiries@brownandcosolicitors.co.uk