The Shot Girl Dilemma: Who's Licence is it Anyway?

One thing I've seen more of recently in pubs and clubs is the rise of the number of "shot sellers". A recent article in the Press & Journal highlighted the rise of this activity - whereby self employed shot sellers weave through the crowds, tray in hand, selling potent drinks directly to patrons.

For bar owners, this model can seem like a win-win: increased sales with minimal overhead, as these individuals are typically engaged as self-employed contractors, not direct employees.

However, my licensing mind got thinking of all the potential issues that this brings - particularly in terms of liability, lack of control, and conflicting objectives.

Scottish licensing law is built on a framework of strict liability and clear accountability, and so t

his approach creates significant risks for licensed premises that choose to use self-employed staff to sell alcohol.

The Unbreakable Chain of Accountability: The Premises Licence Holder

At the heart of the matter is the Premises Licence itself. Under the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005, the ultimate responsibility for everything that happens on a licensed premises falls squarely on the licence holder and the designated premises manager (DPM).

The law does not distinguish between an employee and a self-employed contractor when it comes to the sale of alcohol. If a sale is made from within your licensed premises, it is considered your sale. The Licensing Objectives—preventing crime and disorder, securing public safety, preventing public nuisance, and protecting children from harm—are non-negotiable and apply to all activities within the licensed area.

Therefore, if a self-employed shot seller sells a shot to a 17-year-old or an obviously intoxicated person, it is the bar—the premises licence holder—that has committed the offence. The consequences can be severe:

• Substantial Fines: The licence holder can face an unlimited fine.

  
  

• Licence Review: The premises licence can be called for review by the Police Licensing Board, or any other competent person.

  
  

• Sanctions: Following a review, the Licensing Board can impose a range of sanctions, including suspending the licence for a period, revoking it entirely, or adding punishing conditions.

  
  

• Reputational Damage: A conviction or licence review can cause lasting harm to a business's reputation.

  
  

The Illusion of Separation: Why "Self-Employed" Doesn't Mean "Absolved"

Bars often operate under the mistaken belief that by using self-employed contractors, they can create a legal firewall, insulating themselves from the contractors' actions. This is a dangerous fallacy.

While a well-drafted contract with the shot seller may include clauses requiring them to adhere to all licensing laws and allowing the bar to sue them for any losses incurred from a breach (a right of indemnity), this is a remedial, not a preventative, measure.

• A Contract is Not a Shield: The Police and the Licensing Board will pursue the licence holder, not the self-employed individual, for breaches of the Act. Your contract with the shot seller is a private civil matter; it does not absolve you of your statutory responsibilities under criminal law.

  
  

• Limited Recourse: If a shot seller's action leads to a £10,000 fine and the suspension of your licence for a month, it is highly unlikely they would have the financial means to compensate you for that loss. The contract, while legally sound, may be practically unenforceable.

  
  

The Incentive Problem: Sales Commission vs. Licensing Objectives

The very payment structure common for self-employed shot sellers creates a fundamental conflict with the Licensing Objectives. As they are typically paid on a commission-only basis, their primary motivation is to maximise sales.

This direct financial incentive can, even if unintentionally, lead to corners being cut. The pressure to earn a living may influence their decision-making at the crucial moment:

• Checking ID: A rigorous ID check takes time and may disrupt a rapid sales pitch. The temptation to accept a dubious ID or skip the check altogether to secure a sale becomes a tangible risk.

  
  

• Assessing Intoxication: Denying a sale to a group of drunk customers means losing multiple sales at once. A commissioned individual, without the security of a hourly wage, may be more likely to judge a person as "merrily tipsy" rather than "over the line" of intoxication as defined by the law.

  
  

In contrast, a trained, salaried employee's primary duty is to uphold the policies of the bar. Their performance is (or should be) measured on compliance and customer service as much as on sales, aligning their interests directly with the Licensing Objectives.

Mitigating the Risk: Best Practices for Licensed Premises

If a bar decides to proceed with using self-employed promoters, it must implement a rigorous system of control to mitigate the inherent risks. This involves treating them, for all practical purposes, as if they were employees when it comes to licensing compliance:

1. Comprehensive Training: Do not allow any promoter on the floor without documented, bar-specific training on the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005, the Mandatory Conditions, and the bar's own policies on Challenge 25, refusing service, and incident reporting.

   
   

2. Strict Supervision: Self-employed shot sellers must be actively supervised by a member of the bar's permanent management team at all times. Management must be empowered to intervene and stop sales if they witness poor practice.

   
   

3. Clear, Signed Agreement: Have a robust contract that explicitly states the promoter's obligation to follow all licensing laws and the bar's policies. It should include a right to immediate termination for any breach and a clear indemnity clause.

   
   

4. Integrate them into Your System: Ensure they understand and use the same refusal logs and incident reporting systems as your staff. Their sales should be processed through the bar's till system, not handled in cash independently, to maintain a full audit trail.

   
   

5. Audit and Verify: Management should periodically "test" the promoters by observing their interactions with customers, just as they might mystery-shop their own staff.

   
   

Conclusion

The use of self-employed "shot sellers" in Scottish bars is a high-risk strategy. While the potential for increased revenue is clear, the legal framework offers the premises licence holder no real protection from their actions. The law’s gaze falls unerringly on the licence holder, and the financial incentives of the commission model can directly undermine the core objectives of public safety and prevention of harm.

Bars must recognise that the title "self-employed" is a contractual formality that holds little weight with a Licensing Board. The only prudent approach is to exert a level of control and supervision so stringent that the distinction becomes, for the purposes of licensing compliance, irrelevant. Failure to do so is not just a operational risk, but a direct gamble with the very licence that allows the business to operate.