Agenda item

The Licensing Officer reported that the applicant had submitted a second witness statement, dated 12 December 2017, and members confirmed receipt of this.

In response to questions from members, the Licensing Officer reported that the premises were situated in Junction Ward, which was one of her areas of responsibility and she guessed she would have visited the premises in August 2016 and again in August 2017.   The application was received on 23 August 2017.  

The applicant’s legal representative stated that Ms Wang had been a Director of the company since 2014 and had been the licensee since.

Referring to the Police statement of visits to the premises in March and November 2017, the applicant’s legal representative noted that clients at the premises had confirmed that they had not been offered sexual services. The premises known as Golden Health was the applicant’s livelihood, she attended most days and she understood that it was her responsibility to supervise her staff and to ensure that rules were complied with.  The allegations made by the Police about the premises all came from the website and the veracity of the posts on the website could not be confirmed. Some of the clients at the premises were women. The circumstances of the presence of a female visitor at the premises on the Police visit of 22 July 2017 were explained to the Committee by the applicant.    The applicant had informed her legal representative that she had misunderstood a question asked by the Police at one of their visits when they had asked to see staff records and she had informed them that she did not keep records. In fact, she did keep records and had qualification certificates, licences, IDs and contracts of employment for each of them. These records were kept in a locked drawer at the premises. The staff at the premises wore a uniform and the member of staff who had been seen by the Police at the visit on 11 November 2017, not in uniform, had told her manager (the applicant) that she had been late in arriving at work and had had no time to change into her uniform.  The applicant’s representative added that members of the staff were present at this meeting as witnesses for the applicant and for questions from members.  She drew members’ attendance to the second witness statement produced by the applicant, which attached a price list, a notice for customers and staff payslips. The contract of employment between Golden Health and the staff made it clear that staff could provide body massage only and no other types of massage and, if they did, they could be dismissed. The notice to customers made it clear that no sexual services were offered to clients at the premises. 

The applicant’s representative noted that the internet research carried out by the Police had taken place on 7 November 2017 ie after the Licensing Regulatory Committee on 6 November 2017. The posts on the website were described as “unsavoury” and were from anonymous people.  The applicant had assured her representative that the internet posts were absolutely untrue. The applicant’s representative pointed out that the applicant had been accompanied today by three members of staff from Golden Health and that they were prepared to answer questions. She also drew attention to the price list and the statement in the notices posted at the premises that no sexual services were on offer to clients.

Members of the Committee asked questions about the hours worked by staff and how new staff might be inducted. The applicant’s legal adviser said that staff currently working at the premises had worked there for five to six months, so there was some continuity, although different staff worked on different days.  On the day of the Police visit, the applicant had asked the interviewee, via social media, to arrive after 2.00pm, with her ID and certificates. The interviewee was there to observe, not to work and would later be interviewed by the manager.  The Police visit had occurred before the manager arrived at the premises.  Members asked whether procedures had been followed on that day as it appeared that the interviewee had started working at the premises without the proper ID. Members expressed their surprise that there appeared to be no procedures in force for inducting this, or any other, new member of staff.  The applicant’s representative stated that the applicant had learned from this experience but the applicant had made it clear that the person who had turned up at the premises on 22 July 2017 was there to be interviewed. The applicant stated that she had no contact information for the person who had turned up to be interviewed since their arrangements had been made via social media and the person had since blocked the applicant.

A member of the Committee noted that, although the applicant’s representative had stated that some of the clients at the premises were women, on the formal visits by the Police and Local Authority, all the clients were men and the masseuses were women.  Although the applicant’s representative had referred to the website comments as “fantasy”, the Committee had not seen any evidence of female clients at the premises.

The Police representative confirmed that, on the formal visits to the premises, only one male had been seen receiving treatment.  They had not seen any female clients on the premises. The Police had received information about the premises from an anonymous source and had acted upon it. It was unfair to suggest that the Police had “actively been seeking” information about the premises.  They had simply found it as part of their search. He queried why staff at the premises had not used their real names.  The applicant said in response that the Chinese name of the woman who Police had spoken to was hard to pronounce so she had chosen an alternative. The applicant’s representative pointed out that the particular member of staff referred to had provided her real name to the Police on both occasions of their visit to the premises.  The Police representative maintained that extra services were offered at the premises, as witnessed by several posts on the website and that there was a high turnover of staff at the premises.  He highlighted the fact that, at the visit on 29 March 2017, a male client on the premises had stated that the premises was well known for offering sexual services, although he was there for a massage only.

Members asked the Police representative whether more could have been done by the Police on the visit to the premises on 22 July 2017 when they had identified a possible trafficking victim. The Police representative stated that they could have contacted Immigration Services, put her in touch with services supporting trafficked women and found a place of safety for the woman they had tried to communicate with at the premises.

The applicant was reminded by the Licensing Officer that, as a manager, she was required to supply the therapy registration certificates and ID for the four staff working at the premises to the Licensing Officer without delay.  In response to a question from the Licensing Officer about when the notices of services provided (copied to members of the Committee) had been installed in the treatment rooms, the applicant stated that they had been installed about two years ago. However, when the Licensing Officer queried this, stating that she had never seen any notices in the treatment rooms on her visits, the applicant said that the notices had been installed one month ago.  The Licensing Officer alerted the applicant to the fact that, when a website search of the Golden Health premises was carried out, viewers were directed to a suspect website in the Philippines.  The applicant said that she had not been aware of this.

The applicant’s legal adviser was invited to question two of the three staff from the premises who were in attendance with the applicant about their qualifications and work arrangements. The first, named Marina from Romania, stated that she had worked at the premises for seven months and provided Swedish massage, reiki and acupressure. She had an NVQ 3. She was reminded that she had signed a contract with the premises and was asked whether she had offered sexual services to clients at the premises and whether she was aware of the consequences if she did offer such services. Marina confirmed that she had signed a contract and that she knew that she would be dismissed if she offered additional services.  In response to a question from a member, Marina confirmed that clients were 50% female and 50% male, that clients had asked her for sexual services and that she had seen the notices in the treatment rooms making it clear that sexual services were not on offer to clients.  The second worker, named Ruby, confirmed that she was a British citizen and that she had worked at Golden Health for five months. She had qualifications in deep heat massage, that she had signed a contract and that she was aware that she would be dismissed if she offered sexual services to clients. Ruby was wearing the work uniform supplied by the premises manager and showed this to the Committee members. In response to a question from a member of the Committee, both the Licensing Officer and the Police representative confirmed that they had never seen staff wearing this uniform on their visits to the premises.  The applicant stated that staff had been wearing uniform for the past three months and that she had pointed out to the Police on their latest visit that staff were wearing a uniform.  A member of the Committee asked the Police representative whether, on the visit to the premises on 11 November 2017, they had seen staff wearing uniform.  The Police representative replied that there was a staff member present who was clearly not in uniform.  The applicant stated that she had questioned this member of staff about her reasons for not wearing her uniform on that occasion and been told that the staff member was late on arriving at work and had not had time to change into her uniform.  The applicant had reprimanded the member of staff and told her that she would be cutting £10 from her wages as a result of her not wearing her uniform.

In summary, the Police representative said that the Police had received information from an anonymous source to say that the premises known as Golden Health was operating as a brothel. Visits to the premises had taken place on 29 March, 7 November and 11 November 2017. At those visits, the Police had concerns about staff turnover and the lack of staff uniform. On each occasion, one male client had been present on the premises and one client had said that the premises was known for offering sexual services. On the visit of 22 July 2017, Police had spoken to a female and were concerned that she could provide no identification details, although she had said she was at the premises for the purposes of an interview with the manager. At a subsequent visit by Police on 11 November 2017, no staff were in uniform.  Posts on the internet indicated that sexual services were offered at the premises, with the names of staff, services provided and prices, all included. The Police were also concerned that staff were not using their proper names.  He maintained that there was sufficient information available for the Police to have made representations against the renewal of this premises licence.

In summary, the applicant’s legal representative said that there was no evidence that Golden Health was operating as a brothel. On two Police visits to the premises, two male clients had been present and both had said that no sexual services were offered to them. It was hearsay that the premises was known for offering sexual services. Because it was not known who the persons were who had posted comments on the internet, it would be impossible to verify any of them. The applicant had made two witness statements and the Committee had heard directly from two of her employees that sexual services were not offered at the premises.  It was clear that more needed to be done by the applicant in the future in her role as manager of the premises. She had provided uniforms for her staff in the past three months, set up a staff rota, knew that she had to ensure that paper work was in order and needed to address how she inducted new employees.  The applicant would like to work with the Police and the Licensing Team to ensure that the premises was compliant with all requirements. Furthermore, the applicant was open to visits and inspections and felt that these would offer her some protection against any rumours about the premises. The applicant felt that, if she were better able to manage the premises, she would be protecting herself.