Agenda and minutes

Councillor Michelline Ngongo welcomed everyone to the meeting and officers and members introduced themselves.  The procedure for the conduct of the meeting was outlined.

None.

There were no declarations of substitute members.

If you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest* in an item of business:

§  if it is not yet on the council’s register, you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent;

§  you may choose to declare a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest that is already in the register in the interests of openness and transparency. 

In both the above cases, you must leave the room without participating in discussion of the item.

If you have a personal interest in an item of business and you intend to speak or vote on the item you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent but you may participate in the discussion and vote on the item.

*(a)Employment, etc - Any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit or gain.

(b) Sponsorship - Any payment or other financial benefit in respect of your expenses in carrying out duties as a member, or of your election; including from a trade union.

(c) Contracts - Any current contract for goods, services or works, between you or your partner (or a body in which one of you has a beneficial interest) and the council.

(d) Land - Any beneficial interest in land which is within the council’s area.

(e) Licences- Any licence to occupy land in the council’s area for a month or longer.

(f) Corporate tenancies - Any tenancy between the council and a body in which you or your partner have a beneficial interest.

 (g) Securities - Any beneficial interest in securities of a body which has a place of business or land in the council’s area, if the total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that body or of any one class of its issued share capital. 

This applies to all members present at the meeting.

There were no declarations of interest.

The order of business would be as the agenda.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 17 September 2019 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

The Sub-Committee noted that this application had been withdrawn by the applicant.

The licensing officer reported that there had been an application for a new designated premises supervisor.  There was unlikely to be any objections to this application.  Details of a compliance check which had taken place on the 25 October 2019 were at page 67 of the agenda.

The trading standards officer reported that free training had been offered but had not been taken up by the licensee. It was stated that on the 20 August 2019 the premises licence holder sold alcohol to a 14-year old.  The police were in attendance.  During the visit it was noted that beers were on sale with no English labelling which was illegal. Nine of the seventeen licence conditions were being breached on the day of attendance. The change in designated premises supervisor (dps) was seen as a positive step in the first instance, however, the sale of alcohol to a person underage did take place and the Sub-Committee was asked to consider paragraph 11.27 of the Home Office guidance which stated that the sale of alcohol to minors was a criminal activity and should be treated particularly seriously.

In response to questions it was noted that an email had been sent on the 30 November 2018 which offered free training by Trading Standards and this had not been responded to by the licensee.  This was a standard offer made to all applicants. The test purchase visit was made due to intelligence received.    Following the review application, the applicant had appointed a consultant and a change of designated premises supervisor had been proposed.  These had both been positive steps.

The public health officer referred the Sub-Committee to the representation on pages 58 and 59 of the agenda.  It was highlighted that Islington had the highest rate of alcohol specific admissions in London among those under 18 years.

The licensing authority referred the Sub-Committee to the representation on pages 56/57 of the agenda. It was advised in the representation that a short suspension be considered following the compliance visit on the 25 October 2019.

In response to questions it was noted that there had still been some issues outstanding at the compliance visit. The trading standards officer reported that the replacement of the designated premises supervisor was not an exceptional measure but was considered normal when a licence was being reviewed. It was noted that a suspension could be used as a punishment and the police stated that the licensee could use this time to engage with trading standards and improve the training for staff.

The licensee’s representative stated that the licensee apologises for the breaches.  This was a family business. The father was the licence holder but the recent problems had encouraged the rest of the family to become involved in the business. The proposed dps was the daughter of the licensee.  She attended the premises daily as did the son of the licence holder. They took responsible action following the review by employing a consultant to make sure they were compliant.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

The licensing officer reported that the licence had been amended in October 2018 following a Council and Police Officer panel meeting.  Notes of a compliance visit on the 25 October 2019 were detailed on page 102 of the agenda.

The trading standards officer reported that alcohol had been sold to a 14-year old in August 2019.  A penalty notice was served by the police.  Training records had not been produced although a refusals register appeared to be kept up to date. The minor was not in a group, so was not intimidating.  The business should have been thinking Challenge 25 and if customers did not look 25 years they should be asked their age. The licensee had not engaged with trading standards and it was considered that a suspension be considered to act as a deterrent.

In response to questions, it was noted that the sale took place at 3.20pm during the after school period. The trading standards officer stated that, in mitigation, the alcohol was not sold by the licensee and had not been sold previously, however, it had been a catastrophic failure of the business to sell alcohol to a 14-year old at that particular time of day.  This licence was a 24-hour licence and customers were even more vulnerable in the early hours of the morning.

The public health officer raised concerns that the 14-year old was able to purchase alcohol with such ease and stated that this premises was falling well below the expected standards of management.

The licensing authority stated that their representation was detailed on pages 96-98. Following the submission of the review there had been no contact from the licensee.  Two staff members seemed unaware that a review of the licence was pending.  Conditions were still not being complied with at the compliance visit on the 25 October.  There had been a previous history of non-compliance and a panel hearing following a fight in the premises involving staff and breaches of licence conditions.   This was a 24-hour operation which required very good management standards.  The licensing authority considered that revocation or a long suspension be seriously considered in this instance.

In response to questions, it was noted that the sale had been a major failure of the business and the compliance visit was a concern. Revocation of the licence was a suggested option. The panel visit had been at the request of the police licensing team following a fight in the premises involving staff and a weapon.

The police reported that they had assisted with the visit by Trading Standards.  The previous panel had been arranged and the licence modified and it was hoped that there would be some improvement in standards.  It was expected that management standards should be very high in a premises with a 24-hour licence. There had been inconsistencies in management standards. They were concerned that the designated premises supervisor was not doing all necessary to prevent crime and disorder.  Irresponsible sale of alcohol could significantly fuel problems with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

The licensing officer reported that the licence holder was transferred onto the licence in May 2017.  The licensee attended an officer panel on 25 September 2018 following an underage sale. Following a sale after permitted hours the licence holder attended a further officer panel in November 2018.  A compliance check was then carried out on the 25 October 2019 where there was found to be breaches of the licence conditions.  The Sub-Committee noted that a representation from the local councillor had not been printed in the agenda.  This email outlined support for the review and the proposed actions.

The trading standards officer reported that, following intelligence received, trading standards officers and the police found illicit tobacco hidden on the premises.  A significant amount was found, some being counterfeit and some illegally labelled. This was considered to be a deliberate act and not due to negligence.

In response to questions it was noted that, on the day of the search, there were three adults in the premises and a member of staff declined to provide their name. The licence holder was present at the time.

The licensing authority referred to her representation on pages 128/129 of the agenda and referred to the compliance visit. At the compliance visit on the 25 October it was stated that there were four conditions that had not been complied with, which included no incident book, CCTV had not been checked and high strength Polish alcohol was for sale. There had been an officer panel on the 25 September 2018, following a failed Challenge 25 test purchase, and additional licence conditions were agreed. There had been a further officer panel on the 1 November when alcohol was sold after hours. This premises had a significant history of non-compliance and there had been no response from the licence holder since the review had been submitted and revocation was deemed appropriate in this case.

The licence holder, through an interpreter who as a family member, stated that a family member had stated that the tobacco was for personal use. The person who would not give their name was intending to buy the premises and wanted to look at the shop.  The letters handed in on the 12 August were handed to a male working behind the counter and the licensee was not aware of this.  She stated that she would not allow anything illegal in the premises.

In response to questions about training it was noted that the licence holder held a personal licence and her husband had always worked in shops so had this experience.  The licence holder was on holiday during August and September so had not responded to letters. It was stated that the uncle would have called in and told officers that she was not in the country.

In response to questions, the licence holder said that she remembered the compliance visit. She had been informed that items had still been outstanding but she thought if she did everything she would be fine.  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.