Agenda item

The police officer reported that there had been three attempts to transfer the licence from September 2016 that they considered had been an attempt to evade enforcement action.  They had no evidence of a legitimate sale and there had been a lack of engagement from the applicant.  The police asked the applicant to explain their part in the premises previously and the circumstances of the sale.

The applicant’s representative informed the Sub-Committee that proof of transferred money was provided in the tabled information which would be interleaved with the agenda papers.  He reported that there had been a significant improvement in the business since September 2016.  Details of compliance with conditions had been set out in the tabled papers.  It had been unfortunate that there had been a delay in this information however, the applicant was now taking the matter seriously and understood his obligations. 

In response to questions it was noted that Mr Ali Has was now divesting 100% of his interest in the premises.  Mr Khartel and Mr Zagrosi were purchasing the premises at Holland Walk. Mr Ali Has and Mr Zagrosi were both Directors of MHAK Management Ltd. Mr Khartel stated that they were both mainly cashiers in the business prior to the application for a transfer of the licence. Mr Khartel and Mr Zagrosi were purchasing a 15 year lease.  MHAK would be the freeholder. It was expected that the sale would take about 8 weeks to complete.

In response to questions it was noted that Mr Zagrosi was appointed as a Director on the 14^th November so that he could participate in the business.  The two previous applications for transfer had been withdrawn as they had been poorly prepared.  The police considered that the two late withdrawals of the transfer application had been a way of circumnavigating the review process.  It was noted that if the transfer was refused the premises would be sold. The applicant’s solicitor offered a condition that Mr Has would not be involved in the management of the business.

The Sub-Committee adjourned to consider the application.  Upon return, the solicitor representing MHAK Management clarified that Mr Zagrosi was a Director of MHAK Management London Ltd and not MHAK Management Ltd.  Mr Zagrosi was not a shareholder but was a Director in order that he could have an official role in the business.  It was confirmed that once the sale was completed, Mr Has would remove himself as Director and hand the company over to Mr Zagrosi.

RESOLVED

That the application for a premises licence transfer to Mr Buluthan Kartal, in respect of Nisa Local, 89-91 Holland Walk, N19 3XU be granted.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Sub-Committee listened to all the evidence and submissions and read all the material. The Sub-Committee reached the decision having given consideration to the Licensing Act 2003, as amended, and its regulations, the national guidance and the Council’s Licensing Policy.

The Sub-Committee heard from the police that they had concerns that there was no evidence of a legitimate sale of the business, that the transfer application was an attempt to avoid enforcement action and that there had been a lack of engagement from the applicant.  The police asked for an explanation as to the circumstances of the sale.

The Sub-Committee heard from the applicant’s representative that a copy of the sale agreement was in the papers and proof of monies transferred had been provided.  The sale price was confirmed along with details of the ownership of the business and the ownership of a day to day management company. The Sub-Committee noted that a licensing consultant visited the premises in October 2016 and noted that there were still some breaches of conditions, but that when the same consultant returned in January 2017, all conditions were being complied with.  The applicant’s business partner stated that the completion of the lease should take about eight weeks.  The Sub-Committee noted that if the transfer was refused the sale would not complete and the business would be put up for sale again. 

The Sub-Committee noted that, in response to concerns regarding the possible on-going involvement of the previous owner, the previous owner’s representative had indicated that, once the sale had gone through, his involvement would end and that he would be happy for a condition to be included on the licence to this effect.

The Sub-Committee formed the view that the transfer of the licence would promote the licensing objectives.  Evidence had been provided to suggest that the sale was going ahead and that the previous owner would not be involved in the business once the sale had completed. Although the Sub-Committee noted the police concerns it was not satisfied that the circumstances of the case were such that granting the application would undermine the crime prevention objective.

The Sub-Committee considered the Home Office guidance particularly paragraphs 8.92 to 8.95.