Home Secretary Charles Clarke has accused pub companies of using ‘blackmail’ to ensure that extended opening hours are approved, regardless of opposition from local residents.

Certain groups within the hospitality industry have been accused of trying to scare people out of taking legal action against license extension applications by saying that anyone who opposed them would be liable to pay thousands of pounds in costs if they lost their case.

Speaking about the new licensing laws – which will take full effect from 24 November – on Radio 4’s Today programme, Clarke said: “Some pub companies are trying to use this kind of blackmail to get their position through.”

He added that members of the public should not be penalised when pubs challenged decisions not to extend their licences and that, councils should fight these cases instead.

Clarke’s comments came in response to recent reports that an east London man – Toby Walne – had accused the Laurel Pub Company’s solicitors of making a “thinly veiled threat” regarding the recovery of legal costs following his attempt to prevent the Hogshead pub in South Woodford gaining a licence to open later.

In response, a Laurel Pub Company spokesperson explained that the group had applied for slightly extended open hours on 15 August, which was granted by the local council. Walne, one of the local residents, had decided to appeal via a hearing, which happened on 27 September, where the case was dismissed and the council’s decisions were verified.

The spokesperson said: “Prior to the case, we took a responsible and common sense decision not to seek costs, whatever the outcome. By law, we could ask for costs but they are awarded by the discretion of the court. We do take on board what local residents think and we’re a socially responsible, reasonable pub company.”

Further to this, a spokesperson for JD Wetherspoon said the group “wouldn’t look to claim back legal costs from objectors” if a case went to court.

In a statement released on 23 September, culture secretary Tessa Jowell reiterated the government’s position on legitimate residential objections to licensing extension.

She said: “The Licensing Act gives power to local communities to decide on closing times and bring in tougher protections against alcohol-related crime and disorder and public nuisance. I want to be absolutely clear: where an application for longer hours would undermine those objectives, the public interest should win hands down.”

A spokesperson from the British Institute of Innkeeping (BII) added: “Objections to licence applications will not mean that residents have to pay any expenses. The remit of the Licensing Act means that local residents and neighbours can object to a proposed licence if they feel that the proposals will affect them adversely. At this stage licensees can be asked to make changes to their application to ensure that they continue to be a good neighbour. In most cases licensees are happy to do this as they exist a part of their local community. This cannot incur any costs to residents.”

In August, a report made to the Home Office by the Council of Circuit Judges warned that the relaxation of licensing laws will lead to increased drink-related violence, domestic abuse, rape and serious assaults while the Association of Police Officers has also criticised the new laws.

So far, around half of the 60,000 licensed premises seeking to vary their opening hours have faced objections from the public. Details: www.culture.gov.uk