Agenda item

The police stated that they fully supported the review submitted by the licensing authority.  The sales that had taken place on the 3 and the 4 July, after hours was not just one of those things.  This was not behaviour that should be shown by a licensee.  At  no time had the licensee demonstrated that he wanted to work with the authorities.

The licensing authority stated that a summary of their review could be located at pages 188-121 of the agenda.  When events such as the Wireless Festival were held the licensing authority asked their licensees to impose stricter measures.  This should not be an opportunity for an applicant to apply for a temporary event notice and when refused, to sell alcohol after hours.  Their CCTV had not been working when requested, the refusals book was blank, the certificates out of date and there were no details of training records.

In response to questions it was considered that upon examination by officers the refusals book looked as if it had been completed at the same time rather than on a daily basis.

The trading standards officer reported that no contact had been made since his representation had been made.  At the time of the application for the licence, in Spring 2014, he had been quite supportive of the applicants but it appears that his trust was misplaced.  He sent an email to the business in September 2014 stating that continued breaches would not be acceptable, following a failed underage test purchase and after noting high strength alcohol on the shelves,.  The licensees did not heed the warning.  He considered that repeated breaches were intentional and the licensee had a disregard for truth under caution and was either incompetent or unwilling to manage the business properly.

The licensee stated that it was a shame that they had reached this point.  Licensing officers had been helpful throughout and had informed them how they needed to comply with the license conditions.  They did not have much experience and did not realise how hard it would be as they were open 19 hours each day.  The underage sale had been witnessed by trading standards and alcohol was sold by his mother. They did not employ other people in the business and the problems had been made by their parents.  They shared responsibilities.  They did not sell after hours, it was the parents and they did not realise that Oranjeboon was a beer. This was a misunderstanding.  The fridges had locks but they now closed at 11pm so there would be no problem with the open shelves.  The CCTV was fixed on the same day that licensing officers had visited. He apologised on his parents behalf and wished they could be in the shop 19 hours a day. The first aid kit was available but he asked officers to wait ten minutes as he was busy.  He showed it to police the next day.   He was trying his best.  His brother had refused a sale.  The camera was being repaired.  They were unable to put shutters around alcohol so now closed at 11pm.  Once they knew beer was over strength they no longer sold it. The CCTV had now been seen but there was no mention of this in the report.

In response to questions it was noted that they had applied for a TEN one month before which was refused but it could not go the Sub-Committee.  They had to make another application and that could not be heard at Sub-Committee.  The shop across the road was allowed to sell.  He wanted a hearing.  If the cameras were working this would confirm that they did not sell products after hours.  His father was working that evening. After this problem they chose to close at 11pm.

In summary, the licensing authority stated that there was an issue with the two brothers running the premises and how well it would be run in the future.  She was not sure that improvements went far enough.  She recommended that the licence should be revoked, or if not revoked a long suspension.

The police stated that the CCTV should be maintained and regularly serviced.  There was a concern regarding the staff on duty.  The parents did not speak English and this was concerning.

The trading standards officer had stated that illicit products had not been found.  Two test purchases had been passed since September 2014. Tacim had attended training which had stressed the importance of complying with conditions.  The failure regarding the high strength beer condition, shutting on time and the CCTV condition were conditions that should always be complied with.

The licensees stated that they had answered honestly and taken solid steps to improve.  The CCTV engineer was booked and was fixed.  We can train people in the shop.  His wife was in the shop this evening.  We started training her a week ago. They were doing the best we could.  It was a problematic place and they had avoided most problems.  They would not want to jeopardise the business.  There was no solid evidence that they had sold after hours.  They carried out refusals and training.

RESOLVED that the premises licence in respect of Seven Days Food and Wine, 93A Stroud Green Road, N4 3PX be revoked.

REASONS FOR DECISION

This was an application for review of the licence brought by the Licensing Authority.

The Sub-Committee considered the written application, the written submissions by Trading Standards and the verbal representations made by all parties at the hearing.

The Sub-Committee noted that the licence was granted in 2014. It noted further that since that July 2015, after being made aware that he was not permitted to sell alcohol outside the permitted hours of his premises licence, alcohol was sold in contravention of the licence conditions to two licensing officers on 3^rd July 2015. This occurred again on 4^th July 2015.

When the CCTV footage of the sales was requested the licensing authority was told by the licensee that it was not working and as a consequence they had no proof of the contravention.

CCTV footage was not maintained in accordance with the licence. A full inspection of the premises on 10^th July 2015 revealed various contraventions of the licence conditions. High strength beer, lager or cider was on display in contravention of the conditions, fridges that were supposed to be locked, weren’t, the public risk assessment could not be produced, emergency lighting and smoke detector certificates could not be produced, the first aid kit was unavailable, the refusals book was blank and this was despite that fact that the officers had witnessed a refused sale the day before, no Challenge 25 poster was displayed.

When questioned about these breaches by the Sub-Committee, the licensee blamed his parents who he said he had left in charge of the premises on a regular basis.  The licensee had admitted that he had not trained his parents about age restricted products.  He stated that he had found the running and management of the business very hard and stated that it was much harder and more involved than he had anticipated when he originally applied for the licence.

The scale of the transgressions, the response of the licensee to the licensing officers at the time and the response of the licensee to questions set out to him by the Sub-Committee on the management or lack thereof of the premises caused the Sub-Committee to conclude that the applicant did not have the requisite skills or appreciation of the skills required to be a licensee of premises such as this.  The Sub-Committee was of the opinion that a suspension or the addition of further conditions would not be of assistance in this particular matter.

The Sub Committee considered all options available to them when reaching their decision.

The Sub-Committee was of the opinion that the cause or causes of the concerns that the representations identified was poor and inexperienced management.

In addition thereto, the Sub-Committee concluded that the deficiency in management skills and the acknowledged fact that the licensee found the process difficult and more onerous than initially envisaged, were of grave concern. The Sub-Committee had no confidence in a suspension solving the problem.

This was a family business and the parties in question want to remain involved.  It would not help to change the DPS and this was not suggested either.

The Sub-Committee accordingly decided that the licence should be revoked. It concluded that in light of the facts set out above, that this decision was both an appropriate and proportionate response to address the causes of concern that instigated the review.