Agenda item

The Sub-Committee noted the additional documents that were circulated separately from the agenda.  These would be interleaved with the agenda papers.

The trading standards officer summarised the events that had led to the review.  In November 2012 and December 2013 there were failed underage test purchases.  An officer panel had been held in December 2012 following the first test purchase and this was followed by the further underage sale in December 2013.  It was noted at this time that no training records were being kept.  There had been a lack of engagement by the licensee. He did not attend the officer panel and there had been no response to a letter sent to the licensee in December asking him to provide evidence of improved management.  The licensee had stated that he had not received the letter. However, he had made no contact with trading standards since the review application in March 2014.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, the trading standards officer reported that no explanation had been given as to why the licensee failed to attend the officer panel and the licensee had made no contact with trading standards despite a series of correspondence.

The police officer stated that they were in full support of the review.   He stated that they had failed to inform customers of the DPPO. He asked the Sub-Committee to place the additional conditions listed in the police representation on the licence if revocation was not agreed.

The licensing authority also asked that if the decision of the Sub-Committee was not revocation, they impose a condition on the licence regarding the sale of alcohol on match days.

Archie Madden, counsel for the licensee, informed the Sub-Committee that there was no excuse for the failed test purchases which were a breach of the licensing objectives.  He stated that this would normally not trigger a review but for other concerns that trading officers had. Conditions that had been proposed by the responsible authorities were fully accepted.  He accepted that there had been a failure to engage. The licensee understood that the premises were located in a sensitive area. The designated premises supervisor was very experienced and worked at the premises for five to six hours a day and ran his own business out of the area in the evening.  The problems had arisen when more junior members of staff had been on duty.  He informed the Sub-Committee that staff would attend training as proposed by trading standards and in addition a new member of staff would be employed for when the designated premises supervisor was not in the shop. 

He reported that a review should identify problems in order that they can be solved.  If junior members of staff were properly supervised this would have solved the underage sale problems.  The licensee had attended the offices for the officer panel but misunderstood that he needed to attend the meeting. He reported that the licensee had been ill which had hindered his ability to concentrate.  The licensee had not received the letter although it was accepted that it had been sent. He considered that the football fans from Germany would be unaware that this was a DPPO area but he accepted that the licensee had not informed customers. A revocation of the licence would mean that it would be very difficult for the shop to survive and residents will lose a retail outlet.  All conditions proposed were accepted.

In response to questions, the designated premises supervisor informed the Sub-Committee that staff were asked not to read the paper or talk on the telephone or be distracted when serving customers. The Sub-Committee had concerns that staff were not being properly supervised and that the conditions proposed by the responsible authorities were not already in place. The licensee stated that he had attended the officer panel but did not go into the meeting as he was not aware that he should. As the designated premises supervisor was not in attendance all day the applicant reported that there would be an additional trained member of staff if required.

In summary, the trading standards officer reported that these suggestions had been made very late.  He would have been less concerned if there had been contact made months ago.  He asked that a long suspension be given if the licence was not revoked.

The applicant stated that he accepted the proposals made by the responsible authorities.  This was a small business with a very experienced designated premises supervisor.

RESOLVED

That the premises licence in respect of A and B Food and Wine, 72 Aubert Park, N5 1TS 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 heard evidence from Trading Standards that there had been an underage sale in 2012 and a further underage sale in December 2013, which had prompted the review application.  Trading standards expressed concerns that the business was not treating underage sales as a priority. The Sub-Committee heard evidence that staff appeared to be trained but that nevertheless, the underage sale still occurred. The trading standards officer stated that the licensee had failed to engage properly with responsible authorities since the underage sale and that there had been no evidence of management improvements.  The Sub-Committee noted that trading standards would not normally seek revocation for two failed test purchases however, in this case there were other problems. The trading standards officer was unable to say anything positive about the business.

The Sub-Committee noted that the police were in full support of the review.  The Sub-Committee was referred to the police evidence at page 215 of disregard for the DPPO on Arsenal match days.

The Sub-Committee noted that the Licensing Authority was also concerned about the premises selling alcohol on match days.

The Sub-Committee heard from the licensee’s representative on the subject of the underage sales.  He recognised the seriousness of the offences but submitted that this was a problem that could be solved improved training for the licence holder and junior members of staff. It was submitted that the business had a very experienced designated premises supervisor.  The licensee’s representative offered a condition that all staff would attend an approved training course and suggested that a new, trained, member of staff could be recruited immediately if necessary. 

The Sub-Committee noted that the designated premises supervisor worked at the premises five to six hours per day and that he ran his own business away from the premises in the evenings. 

The Sub-Committee heard evidence that the licensee had been ill and that this hindered his ability to concentrate on matters although it was accepted that the licensee should have been in contact with the responsible authorities. The Sub-Committee noted the submission that there had been a misunderstanding as to who should attend the officers’ panel meeting.  The Sub-Committee noted that the licensee had accepted all of the proposed conditions made by the responsible authorities.

The Sub-Committee was concerned that the granting of the new licence would undermine the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee was not confident that the management of the premises met the high standards required.  The Sub-Committee was concerned that the designated premises supervisor, although very experienced, was not on the premises for a sufficient amount of time to ensure the smooth running of the business.  The Sub-Committee was concerned about the lack of engagement with responsible authorities following the underage sale and the lack of responsible management on match days.

The Sub-Committee concluded that revocation was a proportionate response to the review application.  Although conditions had been accepted the Sub-Committee was not satisfied that these would promote the licensing objectives. Nor was the Sub-Committee confident, in light of the lack of engagement, that a period of suspension would resolve the clear management failings at the premises.

The Sub-Committee took into consideration Licensing Policies 9 and 10 regarding standards of management and police 30 regarding reviews of premises licences.