A Midlands pub landlady hit by complaints about loud music, cocaine sales and urinating customers has been stripped of her licence.
The council licensing hearing followed court action against Joanne Berry, who managed the Jolly Potters in Hartshill, in the Midlands.
Landlady Joanne has had her personal licence revoked, after being fined for breaches over alcohol sales at the pub.
She was taken to court four months ago following issues with CCTV, underage sales and lack of training at the Staffordshire drinking spot.
It came after the pub’s licence was reviewed in March in the wake of complaints about noise and anti-social behaviour relating to outdoor events during summer months.
Ms Berry went on to plead guilty to carrying on unauthorised licensable activity. Magistrates fined her £120 and ordered her to pay £135 costs, reports StokeonTrentLive .
Now Stafford Borough Council’s licensing sub-committee has met to discuss whether to take its own action. Her personal licence had been taken out with the local authority before she moved address.
Read More
Black Country Wetherspoons
Sergeant Jim Finn, of Staffordshire Police, told Thursday’s committee hearing that alcohol had been sold to two 16-year-old girls during a test purchase operation. Licence conditions relating to CCTV and becoming a member of the area’s pubwatch’ scheme had also been breached.
When Ms Berry had been asked to show her personal licence, the address on it was found to be four years out of date.
Sgt Finn said: “On June 18, we conducted further compliance checks to make sure everything had been put right. There were still breaches of conditions – she said she didn’t know how to join (the pubwatch scheme).
“It was quite an incredible statement when she had been provided with information on how to do so in September, then was questioned by the review hearing in March and thirdly I provided details in April.”
Read More
Related Articles
But Ms Berry told the hearing she had searched for the scheme online – and was unable to find details because it was called by a different name, not pubwatch.
She added: “I could have been a lot better with the paperwork side.
“With events, we had a no re-admittance policy – we had six door staff on.
Read More
Related Articles
“We did everything we could to minimise noise – we put soundproofing in. Everyone required ID for entry and they were searched on entry.
“At the point I had been removed as designated premises supervisor, I got to the point where I had had enough. Then I thought we had tried so hard and become a really good pub. The majority of neighbours are fantastic and support the pub.
“We have had a massive amount of support within the community but, unfortunately, you can’t please all the people. It’s been a constant battle. Complaints for the most part are to do with two neighbours.”
Duncan Craig, who represented Ms Berry at the hearing, said: “Jo has been at the pub for some time. Prior to the review application being submitted by local residents, her conduct in running the pub didn’t give Staffordshire Police any particular concern.
“This is not a review of a premises licence – this is against her as an individual. This is her livelihood, her ability to provide for her family and to earn a living.
“The lease of the pub is up in May. As things stand, Jo is not minded to renew on that business for reasons which may be apparent. The last 12 months has been a difficult time for her emotionally.”
Video Loading
Video Unavailable
Click to play
Tap to play
The video will start in 8Cancel
Play now
Councillor Ann Edgeller, who chaired the hearing, described the decision to revoke Ms Berry’s personal licence as ‘very hard’.
She added: “The committee concluded the revocation of a personal licence is a reasonable and proportionate measure in order to promote the license objectives in relation to prevention of crime.
“The offences for which the licensee was convicted are all relevant offences under the Licensing Act, therefore hugely relevant to the current issues the committee has been asked to consider.
Read More
Related Articles
“Her actions undermined crime prevention objectives. The licence holder was experienced in the licensed trade and ought to know what is required of her.
“She has been given ample opportunity to adhere to the licence conditions. Apart from the conviction, there is a history of incidents the committee considers relevant to the case and they put into question the licence holder’s ability to hold a licence.
“The decision to revoke has been taken regrettably – the committee feels this is the right one in the circumstances.”
