Agenda item

The trading standards officer reported that in December 2016 there had been a Challenge 21 test purchase and the premises licence holder sold to a 21 year old volunteer.  He had not asked for ID.  Officers had difficulty in engagement and the premises licence holder was quite hostile. He was asked to attend a training course but stated that he was too busy. A further test purchase operation was held in January 2017 and alcohol was sold to a 15 year old.  The seller was uncooperative and hostile and did not hold a personal licence (a requirement of the premises licence).  Trading standards did not consider that they could do anything more with the business.  The licensee was not taking his responsibility or the conditions on the licence seriously.

In response to questions it was noted that, following the failed Challenge 25 in December, trading standards had invited the designated premises supervisor and staff to training on age restricted products.  The business was not interested.  No officer panel had been held as the training was considered light touch enforcement and constructive to help improve systems.  Following the underage sale in January, licensing officers visited the premises to offer advice and to undertake a check for condition compliance and found further conditions being breached and the owner hostile and not interested.  The trading standards officer did not consider that the licensee had an understanding of the licensing objectives.  The licensee had not considered training a priority.  It was noted that the licence holder and the owner were the same person.

The police officer supported the review brought by trading standards.  The police had visited on the 15 May and had found numerous breaches of conditions.  The license holder was aggressive and not prepared to listen. 

The public health authority raised their concerns regarding the Challenge 25 failure and the sale to an underage volunteer.  They also raised concerns regarding the availability of super strength beer at the premises.  Alcohol had a real impact on the health and well-being on the most vulnerable. Islington had the second highest rate of alcohol hospital admissions in London.  High strength alcohol provided at low cost was an easy way to obtain cheap alcohol.  The licensee had a disregard for the conditions on his licence.

In response to questions, it was noted that minors would be attracted to alcopops and also super strength alcohol sold at a cheap price which would cause people to get drunk quickly.

The licensing authority asked that the Sub-Committee consider licensing policy 25 regarding the sale of alcohol to children which expected licensees to have robust management arrangements in place.  These arrangements were lacking in this premises.  The licensing authority had no confidence that this would not happen again.

In response to questions it was noted that a previous licence had been revoked.  An appeal against revocation had been withdrawn when a new licence was granted to the premises with reduced hours and additional conditions.  The licensee had no connection to the previous owner.  The licence was then transferred to the current licensee.

The licensee admitted that the accusations made were true.  He stated that the business was a mess when he first began and did not know the business at first.  The prices of alcohol stated in the report were prices taken from the old owners.  As he did not have enough staff a friend of a friend had helped him out so that he could purchase alcohol from the cash and carry.  He had invested a lot of money in the business, he was stressed and because he was young he got frustrated very quickly.  He was working on this.  He had now completed the training and was trying to run a responsible business.  Alcohol was not sold by him but he accepted it was his responsibility.  He had no experience and was trying his best.  His father now had a personal licence and also had completed the training. He would like to stay at the premises and would not like a negative outcome.  He hoped to be given a second chance. 

In response to questions it was noted that the previous owner was no relation.  The previous owner had helped him out initially. He had stayed for all the training session held but he stated his father had had to leave half an hour early due to health problems. He had not had any problems for three months with the business.  He apologised for staff selling alcohol to children.  It was noted that he attended the training after the review had been submitted. It was noted that he’d had the licence for just over a year and in that time there had been an underage sale and about 13 separate breaches of conditions.  The licensee said that he had made a lot of mistakes but it was his first time in managing the business and he would like a second chance.  He was frustrated and angry with officers who attended and could not communicate properly with them.  He did not know that it would come to this.  The training he attended had been helpful and he gave the Sub-Committee his word that there would be an improvement.  He stated that you should not sell alcohol to those underage and the prevention of public nuisance were licensing objectives but could not remember others.  He stated he could not handle officers in his premises and he got frustrated.  He accepted he had not treated officers appropriately. He stated that he had the chair leg behind the counter because it was a dangerous area and he was sometimes scared for his life.  The chair leg made him feel secure but it was not a weapon.  He had rung the police in the past but they had not attended. He stated that the CCTV was working.  He had been training staff properly.  He did not have to be at the store at all times now.  He had to close early previously as he had to be there.  He was now finding it easier. He was slowly finding his way.  He had four staff in the premises.

The trading standards officer stated that the licensee came across as humble but he was not competent.  Selling alcohol was a big responsibility.  This was not a sweetshop. 

The licensee stated that he had not had any problems for four months and believed he could take on the responsibility.  He would hate staff to sell alcohol to children but he had to leave someone in the shop while he went to the cash and carry.  He had to pay his rent and bills.

RESOLVED

That the premises licence, in respect of Essex Alternative Supermarket, 360 Essex Road, N19 5RD be revoked.

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 decided to revoke for the following reasons:-

1)     The outcome of test purchases at the premises evidenced management failures at the premises.

·        On 8^th December 2016 a test purchase checking compliance with the licence condition for Challenge 25 failed. On this occasion the DPS was the seller and sold alcohol to a young adult aged 21 without asking for ID.  It was a particular concern to the Sub-Committee that the seller was the DPS/licensee.

·        On 28 January 2017, trading standards carried out test purchase of alcohol using a minor and the minor was able to purchase alcohol from the premises.

·        The licensee failed to comply with licensing policy 25 which sets out that licensees are expected to implement measures to Challenge 25 standards and to have robust management arrangements in place to prevent staff making underage sales.

2)     The licensee’s failure to comply with licensing conditions.

·        On the 3 February 2017, licensing officers visited the premises and found a number of breaches of licensing conditions including failing to ensure that there was always someone holding a personal licence on the premises and failing to prevent super strength alcohol being sold at a price less than it cost the business. The Sub-Committee was concerned that, at the time of this visit the licensee was reported to be surprised that there were conditions on the licence and he questioned where they came from.

·        On the 24 February 2017, when officers from licensing and trading standards attended the premises to see if the licensee had rectified the breached conditions, the licensee stated that licence conditions ‘are not important’.  The Sub-Committee were concerned at the licensee’s failure to recognise the importance of the licence conditions to promote the licensing objectives.

·        On the 15 May 2017, trading standards officers accompanied by the police found that there were still breaches of license conditions.

3)     The licensee’s failure to co-operate and engage with the responsible authorities.

·        On 8 December 2016, following the failed Challenge 25 test purchase, the licensee was offered training which he rejected saying that he was too busy to attend.

·        On the 24 February 2017 when officers attended at the premises, the licensee was aggressive, angry and obstructive.  The Sub-Committee noted that the licensee accepted that he had behaved in this way.

·        The licensee was requested to provide invoices for the super strength beers on sale at the premises but has failed to provide these.

4)     The licensee has failed to demonstrate that he has the competency to hold a premises licence.

·        The licensee stated that this was the first premises licence he had held and he had no previous experience of working in or running a licensed premises. In this situation an inexperienced licensee would be expected to accept all the training and guidance offered to him by the responsible authorities and to ensure that he understood and was able to comply with his licence conditions and the licensing policy.

·        The licensee failed to employ any experienced staff to assist him in running the business. Of particular concern to the Sub-Committee was the fact that the licensee did not know the name of the person who made the underage sale even though he was often in the shop and the licensee trusted him to mind the shop while he was not present.

·        The licensee failed to arrange training for people working in the premises. The Sub-Committee noted that the licensee and his father had attended training on the 31 May 2017 after the review paperwork had been served.  The Sub-Committee was of the view that this was too little too late.

·        The licensee had failed to devise an operating plan of how to run the premises to achieve the management standards required and ensure that there was full compliance with licensing conditions. The Sub-Committee considered that the licensee’s submission that the only assurance he could give was his word would not ensure that the licensing objectives would be promoted.

·        On the 28 January 2017 trading standards found a chair leg with nails in, that had been behind the counter. The licensee submitted that it was an improvised weapon that he kept on the premises because it was a dangerous area. The Sub-Committee were concerned that this approach was not consistent with a responsible licensee and one that would be fully engaged with promoting the licensing objective for the prevention of crime and disorder.

5)     Failure to promote the licensing objectives.

·        In addition to the points above the Sub-Committee noted the representations from public health and were concerned about the responsibility of selling alcohol to vulnerable people in Islington particularly under 18s. In addition to the concern about the underage sale the Sub-Committee also noted the implications of selling high strength alcohol at low cost.

The Sub-Committee noted the home office revised guidance and the types of criminal activity arising in connection with licensed premises which should be treated particularly seriously. This included the use of the licensed premises for the illegal purchase and consumption of alcohol by minors.  Where the licensing authority is satisfied that the crime prevention objective is being undermined it is expected that revocation of the licence, even in the first instance, should be seriously considered.

In this case the licensing Sub-Committee was satisfied that the imposition of addition conditions or a suspension would not effectively deter further breaches and ensure the promotion of the licensing objectives.  In view of the seriousness of the licensee’s failures and his lack of competency the Sub-Committee was satisfied that it was appropriate and proportionate to revoke the licence.