Skip to content

Agenda item

Essex Alternative Supermarket, 360 Essex Road, N1 3PD - Review of premises licence

Minutes:

The applicant, trading standards reported that the recommendations were set out in the agenda.  He raised concerns that the licensee had failed to dismiss a member of staff who had committed a criminal offence.  There had been several breaches of licence conditions and he had failed to update the address on both the premises and personal licences. Super strength beer was on the premises at a cheap price of £1.50 and the reason for this had not been adequately explained.  The price on the invoice provided for these beers ranged from £1.65 to £1.80.  The cheap price made it attractive for those people with alcohol problems.  The lack of invoices also suggested that the alcohol may not have been purchased from a legitimate source.  He stated that if the Sub-Committee believed the applicant the licence be suspended and additional conditions imposed.  If the Sub-Committee did not believe the applicant he considered that the most appropriate decision was revocation. 

 

In response to questions, it was noted that no alcohol was sold during a couple of test purchases and there were no reasons to believe that there were any issues regarding alcohol after 2011. 

 

The licensee, represented by a translator, stated that he had taken full responsibility for the tobacco in the premises.  He stated that he would transfer the licence and have a break from the business.  He would not want to lose the licence. Regarding the high strength beers, he reported that he had wanted to do a stock clearance and that was why the beers had been cheap.

 

In response to questions, he stated that the tobacco had been sold without his knowledge by a member of staff.  There was quite a significant amount of tobacco that had been hidden in a chocolate box on the shelf and he did not notice.  He now made two CCTV checks each day. He paid the fee for the change of licence address but this had not been done.  He stated that the member of staff had apologised and said he would cover the costs so he did not sack him.  Staff had been trained over the past three years but a note had not been made of the training given.  The Sub-Committee considered that if the member of staff had been trained then he would have known of the offence, if he had not been trained it would bring the management into question.  The staff member had bought the tobacco for personal use and then had given up smoking and had brought it into the shop to sell. 

 

The applicant stated he had trained his staff and he was keeping an eye on the staff through the CCTV.  The tobacco sales had been made without his knowledge but this would not happen again.

 

The trading standards officer reported that there was no indication of a clearance sale marked on the beers. 

 

RESOLVED that the premises licence for Essex Alternative Supermarket, 360 Essex Road, N1 3PD 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 the premises initially came to their attention in February 2011 when 139 bottles of non-UK duty paid Italian wine was seized from the premises by HMRC officers. Following this, the licensee attended an officer panel meeting and admitted that the wine was purchased from a person calling at the shop.  A letter was sent to the licensee following this meeting, reinforcing the advice given and warning him that a review application would be made if smuggled goods were found at the licensed premises in the future.  Guidance was also sent on how to identify illicit tobacco and alcohol. At the end of September 2015 some independent off licences were written to, with offers to attend a training session in this regard.  The licensee did not attend any training sessions offered.  The Sub-Committee heard evidence that despite these initiatives, in November 2015, illicit tobacco and high strength beer, for sale at a cheaper price than would be expected was found on the premises and several breaches of the licence conditions were identified. A total of 23 packs of foreign cigarettes and 48 pouches of foreign tobacco were found on the premises.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that the licensee was interviewed under caution as part of a criminal investigation.  In his interview the licensee had stated that he was unaware that the tobacco was being sold at the premises as it was hidden under the counter.  The Sub-Committee heard that a member of staff had brought the tobacco to the premises to sell after he had given up smoking.  The licensee stated that super strength beers were being sold cheaply as a stock clearance offer.  The licensee accepted full responsibility for the management failure and indicated that if the licence was suspended it was his intention to apply for a transfer of the licence. The Sub-Committee noted that the employee in question continued to be employed in the premises. 

 

The Sub-Committee noted that since the seizure of illicit alcohol in 2011, there had been no problems associated with the licensed premises until the seizure of illicit tobacco in November 2015.  Regardless, the Sub-Committee was of the view that the licensee had failed to demonstrate his ability to properly manage the premises and promote the licensing objectives.

 

The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the addition of further conditions or a reduction in hours would promote the licensing objectives.  The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the removal of the designated premises supervisor or a suspension of the licence pending the transfer of the business would promote the licensing objectives. 

 

The Sub-Committee noted that the tobacco seized on this occasion was sizeable and there had been a serious management failure. In the view of the Sub-Committee, the licensee had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the presence of the illicit tobacco. The licensee had laid the blame with an employee, but the Sub-Committee questioned why, if this was the case, the employee had not been dismissed. Furthermore, the licensee had breached licence conditions and had failed to uphold the licensing objective of prevention of crime and disorder. 

 

The Sub-Committee took into account Licensing policies 9 and 10 regarding standards of management, licensing policy 28 regarding the sale of illicit goods and policy 30 in relation to reviews.  The Sub-Committee also took into account the Home Office guidance particularly paragraphs 11.18 to 11.23, 11.27 and 11.28.

 

In the circumstances the Sub-Committee concluded that the decision to revoke the licence was an appropriate and proportionate response to the promotion of the licensing objectives.

 

 

Supporting documents: