Premises and trading requirements
These regulations are designed to ensure that goods are kept and traded in suitable premises, by registered people keeping the proper records. They also cover selling goods on the street.
You can find all 13 regulations that relate to premises and trading requirements here [opens in new window].
Tell us what you think should happen to these regulations and why, being specific where possible:
- Should they be scrapped altogether?
- Can they be merged with existing regulations?
- Can we simplify them – or reduce the bureaucracy associated with them?
- Have you got any ideas to make these regulations better?
- Do you think they should be left as they are?
Many small premises have a small single space trading area, yet are still required by many authorities to have a fully tested fire alarm system. This is understandable in a large premises but seems unnecessary in an area where any fire would be imediately visible and the alarm could be raised without the need for thousands of pounds worth of kit.
Regulations should be able to clarify that a premises below a certain size are exempt from this expensive and unnecessary equipment.
The Horticultural Trades Association and garden centre retailers are concerned at the potential implications of the impending Regulations under the EU Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive. If these require licenced staff to be present when plant protection products are sold to domestic gardeners the costs and bureaucracy could be extortionate. The Horticultural Trades Association can see no valid reason for imposing such a requirement for products which have been rigorously tested, proved safe and approved for sale to amateur gardeners who do not need any form of training to purchase and use the products concerned.
I have read a number of the comments left on the site under this and other headings. The comment I would apply to all of the areas is that we have seemed to have forgotten the reason that these pieces of legislation that control the way we trade have come about in the first place.
The legislation has evolved into its current forms because of the excesses of some people selling their goods, by whatever means or discipline.
People want to create an advantage for themselves in selling their goods over another trader, so sometimes dishonest traders cheat their customers. The legislation is there to protect consumers, yes, but it is also there to protect other traders who trade fairly, so creates the ‘level playing field’.
If we remove these controls, then we revert back to when there no controls.
I agree that some legislation could be simplified and modernised, but the procedure to do this is in place already, but it takes time to make sure that any new rules (laws/legislation) are not ineffective or unfair against one party or another. Business is consulted when these rules are being drawn up, as are all the other parties involved, as such it is not a simple imposition of unfair rules on business but a balanced approach which is often a compromise to get agreement.
It is very easy to just remove legislation by saying ‘I don’t think its needed, as it impedes me from trading, or is a unfair cost on my business’ until the shoe is on the other foot and you are the customer and someone ‘rips off’ you. When you remove the protection, it doesn’t just remove it from your customers but from you as well. An unregulated society encourages excesses, as we can see from the recent banking problems. We need to be objective in our approach and not just looking for the quick advantage.
Thats true, but sometimes using a sledgehammer to crack a nut is not the best way. Many regulations can be streamlined and better targeted to allow people who want to be in business to earn a living instead of expending all of their efforts on endless bureaucratic nonsense.
This is an unnecessary burden for small retailers in the kbb sector. Construction Skills offer virtually no training relevant for sme’s, as their focus is almost totally on large companies operating in the ‘construction’ sector. Upgrading residential property is an essential task to maintain domestic housing stock, and as such, replacing/installing a kitchen, bathroom, bedroom or home office should not be regarded as ‘construction’ in the sense that the legislation was initially passed. Please remove this red tape cost from sme’s.
I think that the requirements for local authorities to licence entertainments are too restrictive and apply unnecessarily to many charitable events
We are one of the few remaining independent department stores in the country. We struggle to compete with the supermarkets and national retailers. We provide a unique look to our town which everyone values. During a recent valuation office review, the officer asked how many CCTV cameras we have to protect our stock from theft. He told me that if we had 4 or more, the valuation would be higher. Why penalise us for trying to protect our stock against theft? Theft costs us enough as it is without the valuation office charging us more.
I have an idea. Many large chain stores leave all their lights blaring away all night, often for no reason (I understand that some stock shelves at night, but not all, and not all night). Why not fine stores who do this as it is a massive waste of energy and bad for the environment? In an age where councils are saving money by switching lights off and home consumers are constantly pressured to save energy, why on earth are these retail premises getting away with it? Make a regulation that they either switch off, or pay to keep their lights on after hours!
I love this idea that where business and large organisations are wasting energy through lighting premises throughout the night all year round should be made to realise that they are having a wider impact than just having a large electricity bill – i.e. on the environment and local communities. Perhaps if these organisations get reminded that motion sensor lighting used at night time would be sufficient from a safety and energy consumption viewpoint, they might change their ways. Hard regulation would be a little impractical due to a lack of resource to police the actions of these organisations. In these constrained times shouldn’t big organisations be thinking of the bottom line even more than usual?
Furthermore, we all have a contribution to make to lowering the carbon emissions of our country due to the Climate Change Act 2008, it is a legal obligation. It’s a nice win though – lower fuel bill for the company and lower carbon emissions for the rest of the world to reap benefits from.
Please keep these regulations! I have used the provisions on a few occasions to facilitate payment of commercial debt. As a small business, late of non-payment of invoices can have a serious impact on my cashflow. The regulations allow me to a) give a gentle reminder to customers (on my invoices) that I have a statutory right to interest and damages in the event of late payment and b) as a leverage tool to get payment – threatening interest and compensation tends to focus the mind of late payers. I may not get their custom again, but by that stage I’d rather not have them!
I see a lot of EMPLOYEES saying “Leave things as they are”. “We don’t want to work on Sundays” BUT the really big supermarkets already do this.
The really big suppermarkets know all the legal loopholes and use them
The small to medium sized business does need RED TAPE to be removed. Why else have you openeed this forum ?
People who come to work for us are told AT THE START…. “We are in retail, and we expect you to work either a Saturday or a Sunday – as both of these are our busiest days!”
Some people decide that RETAIL is NOT for them, and decide not to join us. That is their choice. We do NOT have a choice … as a business … we MUST be open when people WANT us to be open and when the BIG supermarkets (our competition) are open.
As for “employees” and “the general public”…. some of you will be the EXACT same ones giving shopkeepers ABUSE when we are NOT open until 10am on Sundays !!! You know who you are !!
There was only a quarter of the road blocked off, traffic could still get to the main road areas. But it was all red tape.
empty warehouses are being charged at full rateable value after 6 months’ “holiday”. Many warehousing and property companies are now demolishing empty buildings, rather than pay rates. This will lead to less choice of locations for new and expanding businesses. Policy-makers should recognise that, in the warehousing industry, warehouses are empty because there is no demand. The new regulations will threaten speculative projects and regeneration schemes. Older buildings will be demolished sooner rather than later. The Government believes that empty buliding rates will lead to lower rates, but they will increase rents in the medium term due to shortage of suppply. Empty business rates will also increase the proportion of fixed costs for companies and threaten their competitiveness.
So what exactly are you proposing?
1. A rates holiday until such times as the building is sold or leased? In which case would this not reduce the pressure on the owner to get rid of it asap , e.g. by lowering the rent? or
2. A holiday for, say, 6 months followed by a 50% rate reduction for the next 6 months?
Due to a mixture of factors (supermarkets’ economic buying power, unfair taxes on beer and pub premises, etc.) the pub trade in the UK, part of our culture and heritage, is dying at a worryingly rapid rate.
I believe that as a start to helping pubs get back on their feet it should be free for pubs to apply for alcohol licences whilst there should be a nominal cost for small off-licences and other small stores and a much more expensive fee for licences for supermarkets and large stores. Furthermore, pubs should have their applications treat differently – that the burden is on the local authority to prove why they should not allocate a licence rather than the licencee prove why they should have one. For supermarkets the opposite should be the case. For small shops it should be a neutral footing decision with both parties requiring to give “proof”.
Licencing laws also need to change so that once a premises has a licence it can open for whatever hours it sees fit. It will remain responsible for any noise or nuisances that arise as a result of its activities but there should be a legal presumption that pubs can open 24/7 if they wish to do so. A restriction on opening hours should only be implemented by the local authority if a persistent problem arises and it should be regularly reviewed with a presumption to lifting or part lifting eventually.
Pubs should also automatically be able to sell takeaway alcohol so long as it is within sealed containers (could be pulled from draft rather than bottles or cans), should be allowed to sell cigarettes and tobacco (but not to be smoked on the premises – see further suggestion), and the rules concerning gambling in pubs should be relaxed so they can host one arm bandits, card games and other gambling as a source of income.
Concerning the smoking ban, this has obviously had a huge impact on the trade but at the same time provides a more pleasant environment in pubs as well as the obvious health benefits. As a compromise, pubs should be allowed to provide a designated smoking room with ventilation so smokers can continue to do this indoors. Staff, however, should have a right to refuse to collect glasses in there during opening hours and landlords should have the right to impose a condition on smokers who consume alcohol on their premises to return their glasses to the bar themselves so this is less of a practical issue.
Time to get rid of this damaging Act that allows a person to apply for a Peddlers Licence at nominal cost and not be restricted. Peddlers are a menace. They rarely adhereto the rules and regulations. Council’s and Police do not have the resource to monitor and check up. In the meantime it is the shops and market traders that suffer directly. It is time for the Government to be bold and remove this Victorian legislation – this the 21st century!
I think we should retain these regulations for the safety of the general public and those who work in these areas.
I think it is a great idea that you are inviting businesses to have their say in the red tape that can strangle, or place unecessary obstacles in the way of conducting your business. It is also good how you have spilt the categories down on this site, making it easier to navigate to the legislation you wish to comment on. However, what would have helped more rather than just putting the actual legislation on is a simple summary in lamens terms the pro’s and con’s behind each piece of the legislation currnently in effect and what the outcome would be if were scrapped. I would also like to see something similar to this launched so businesses can have their say on topics such as NI, VAT, Corporation Tax, Rates and so on which would be very helpful.
Keep all the requirements. These provide protection to my family. The legislation itself could be merged so long as the requriements remain the same.
The rules should be simplified and put into one document, with clear guidance to accompany it. Remove what is not absolutely necessary. Local Councils should be able to make bylaws to control problems specific to a locailty, but they should also always only have one document and clear guidance, so that we can easily find it and understand it