Free alcohol gets the chop

Telling clients they can't do what they'd like to do isn't fun (usually) but it's a very necessary part of being an advisor/solicitor/whatever in the world of licensing. Keeping clients on the right side of the tracks is what we're there for.

Sometimes it's difficult though. A generally accepted criticism of the Licensing Act 2003 is the disproportionate burden it places on businesses (especially small ones) where the provision of licensable activities is a minor part of the overall operation. A particular example of this came to my attention recently.

I was contacted by a hairdresser who, in addition to offering complimentary tea, coffee and soft drinks, also offered a glass of wine to customers. At most this amounted to a few glasses a month but with some hair treatments taking time to complete she believed it was important for her customers to feel well looked after and pampered.

There had been a misunderstanding though, and I'm sure that she was not alone in this. As far as she was concerned the alcohol was given away for free, so no licence was required. However, with customers paying for the service they receive at the salon, the law takes a different view - the cases of DPP v McVitie and Doak v Bedford (citations on request) established that principle long ago. The test that has evolved is this - 'would any person walking in off the street and not paying for a service be entitled to a free drink?'. The answer here would surely be no.

So the advice has to be either apply for a licence or stop giving away alcohol and I suspect that most salons would be forced choose the latter, to the sole detriment of their customers. I say forced because the cost of applying for a premises licence (council fee, advert, plans, any advisors' fees) as well as the cost of at least one personal licence is unlikely to be covered by any extra business from the wine offer.

That said, there are those for whom having an alcohol licence will make good business sense. Jacks of London make a bar an integral part of their branches and the salons at the highest end, some of which serve food as well, will see an alcohol licence as necessary for offering the highest levels of customer service.

It's tough to see who benefits from this approach though. How many of the country's hairdressers are likely to become centres for crime, disorder, public nuisance and be of potential harm to the public and, in particular, children by giving away the odd glass of wine? The salons' impact on the licensing objectives is surely negligible at most.

Hair and beauty salons aren't the only sorts of business that are affected in this way, just the most recent example to come to my attention. The problem was flagged in the Better Regulation Task Force's report of April 2006 (PDF), let's hope some sense can be knocked into the Act at some point.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Share This Post