Our response to PPL's SFE tariff consultation

We appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this important consultation on reforming SFE Tariff PP001 and strongly support the principles of fairness and clarity.

 

However, we have concerns regarding the proposed administrative framework and enforcement mechanisms. Our primary feedback is as follows:

1. Complexity and administrative burden

The PP299 tariff structure has proven to be unworkable in significant parts of the hospitality sector, particularly pubs and bars, which offer a helpful example for this consultation. While this consultation does not specifically cover pubs, the problems encountered in the hospitality roll-out are instructive:

• Pubs and similar venues typically do not ticket events or charge entry fees.

• Footfall at such venues is fluid, with patrons arriving and leaving frequently, making accurate “actual admissions” counts effectively impossible without significant additional staffing or technical infrastructure.

• Venue operators often lack resources or systems to record per-event attendance figures.

• As a result, licensees are forced to rely on estimates, which are then vulnerable to challenge or arbitrary revision during audits by PPL PRS.

This creates a system that is administratively burdensome, resource-intensive, and ultimately unworkable for small and mid-sized venues running informal SFE events.

2. No One-Size-Fits-All solution

We believe that applying a single “actual admissions” based tariff to all non-hospitality venues risks repeating the same problems:

• Community centres, university halls, leisure centres, social clubs, arts spaces, and similar venues often run open-access events without ticketing or door charges.

• The cost of implementing controlled admission processes would be disproportionate to the size or revenue of many such events.

• There is a significant risk that many licensees will be forced to make estimates out of necessity — creating the same cycle of disputes and uncertainty that has plagued parts of the hospitality sector under PP299.

We urge PPL to consider either:

• A simplified model for unticketed venues; or

• A dedicated tariff structure for venues where admission numbers cannot reasonably be tracked.

This would avoid imposing administrative burdens on licensees for whom “actual admissions” reporting is operationally unfeasible.

3. Financial impact on larger events

We acknowledge PPL’s point that the current PP001 tariff, particularly for large events, often results in lower per-person costs due to plateau pricing. However, under the proposed new tariff structure:

• The underlying rate per person per hour is increasing from current levels to a projected £5.75p–6.61p by 2028 and beyond, driven both by structural changes and CPI inflation.

• Discounts for larger events are being entirely phased out by 2031.

Our modelling shows that under the proposed tariff in 2031:

• A 200-person event lasting 4 hours would pay roughly the same or slightly less than under current PP001 rates (approximately 2% decrease).

• A 500-person event lasting 4 hours would face an increase of approximately 31% versus current PP001 fees.

• A 1,000-person event lasting 4 hours would pay nearly 80% more than it does today.

These increases arise not from the underlying rate per person being excessive, but from the structural shift away from PP001’s plateau pricing for large events and the removal of all discounts under the new model. This highlights the importance of ensuring any revised tariff is fair, predictable, and practical for venues of all sizes.

We are concerned this level of increase will present a significant challenge to larger venues and events in the future, many of whom are already suffering due to increased costs.

4. Issues with the surcharge mechanism

We are unhappy with the proposed surcharge, for several important reasons:

a. Excessive level compared to other, more serious, penalties.

A 50% surcharge is unusually high when compared to penalties imposed in other regulated contexts, particularly where administrative oversights rather than deliberate evasion are at issue. For example:

• HMRC late payment surcharges for VAT start at 2% to 5% for first offences and only escalate for persistent delays or large debts. Even then, penalties rarely exceed 15-20% unless there’s deliberate concealment.

• Under the Companies House late filing regime, penalties are fixed at amounts like £150–£1,500, depending on lateness and company size, but these fees are proportionate, not percentage-based.

• The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) imposes fines for failure to register for data protection fees, but these are capped at fixed amounts (e.g. £400–£4,350) rather than calculated as a percentage of an organisation’s turnover or fees.

In all these regimes, penalties are structured to be proportionate, not punitive, and reflect the principle that administrative mistakes should not result in financial devastation.

By contrast, a 50% surcharge on SFE licence fees could, for larger events, add hundreds or thousands of pounds purely for a missed administrative deadline — often arising from administrative issues rather than intentional infringement. Such a penalty far exceeds normal regulatory practice and is disproportionate in the context of licensing routine public performances of music.

b. No real “Licence Expiry” under the current system

PPL PRS now operates under a joint licensing model via TheMusicLicence, which means:

• Licences do not truly “expire” in the traditional sense. Instead, licensees remain on rolling terms unless they cancel or change details.

• Administrative delays in renewing or updating licences are often simply business-as-usual issues — not deliberate evasion or copyright infringement.

Imposing a punitive surcharge for late payment or administrative backlogs ignores this operational reality. A delay in paperwork or payment is not the same as an unlicensed public performance — particularly where the same premises have been licensed continuously under TheMusicLicence framework.

c. Practical challenges in attendance estimation

Even more concerning, is the surcharge being linked to PPL PRS’s audit and estimation process, which is often opaque:

• Many venues cannot reliably track “actual admissions” because they do not ticket events.

• If PPL PRS disputes a venue’s attendance estimate, they impose their own figures during an audit, without explanation.

• The surcharge may then apply to the higher estimated figures, compounding the financial impact.

This creates an environment where licensees face severe financial risks, not because they have evaded paying for music use, but because they cannot meet impractical reporting requirements.

d. Need for proportionality and independent dispute resolution

We believe the surcharge mechanism:

• Should only apply where there is clear evidence of deliberate evasion, rather than innocent error or estimation challenges.

• Must be hugely reduced, or capped at a reasonable fixed amount in line with other regulatory sectors.

• Must be accompanied by a transparent, independent dispute resolution process so licensees are not subject to unilateral estimation or arbitrary surcharges without recourse.

In summary, we strongly urge PPL to either remove the surcharge altogether or replace it with a proportionate regime, consistent with principles of fairness, regulatory practice, and the operational realities of the joint PPL PRS licensing system.

Conclusion

We urge PPL to:

Recognise the real-world impossibility of accurate “actual admissions” reporting for many unticketed events.

Explore alternative models (e.g. capacity-based tariffs or simplified annual fees) for such venues

Reform or remove the surcharge mechanism to avoid disproportionate penalties for venues operating in good faith.

Engage further with affected sectors, including the promised 2-year hospitality review, to ensure that any revised SFE tariff is truly fair and workable.

We appreciate PPL’s efforts to modernise tariff structures and look forward to ongoing dialogue to ensure that reforms achieve both fairness and practical enforceability.

My Music Solutions