Agenda item

There was no update from the licensing officer.

Trading Standards advised the sub-committee that there had been a small seizure of illicit alcohol, a failed Challenge 25 sale and an underage sale. At the time of the underage sale, training records had not been produced but they had been subsequently. At a visit to the premises on 9 January 2019, no further illicit alcohol was found and on 12 February 2019, four members of staff had attended training. Although since the breach of the licence, the management of the premises had engaged and co-operated with Trading Standards and better procedures had been put in place, the offences outlined had still been committed.

In response to questions from members about the purpose of a medium term suspension when this was not the first offence and there had been a catalogue of licence breaches between 2010 and 2018, Trading Standards stated that it would provide time for management issues to be resolved and although the issues were serious, management was now engaged and co-operating.

The Licensing Authority stated that a representation had been submitted to support the Trading Standards review. There was a history of non-compliance and the Licensing Authority sought to encourage high standards. These had not been shown by the licensee and the premises had not been run to the high standards expected. At a visit on 12 January 2019, the shop was busy but the licence holder and DPS was not present, a Challenge 25 notice was displayed, CCTV was working but only as far back as 5 January 2019, training records and the sale refusal log were available. On a visit on 8 February 2019, CCTV was working and recording but only back to 15 January 2019, high strength alcohol was still being sold, the licence was on display, 3 people were in the shop and the licensee’s son (who did not have a personal licence) was managing the shop. There was a refusal log back to 2 January 2019 and officers were advised that the refusal log prior to this had been sent to an agent. Invoices were being kept together as were training certificates, fire fighting equipment was correct but the fire exit was blocked and there was no UV pen on the premises. Officers instructed management to resolve areas of concern and since the review had been submitted, improvements had been made. The Licensing Authority requested that a suspension be imposed.

Public Health stated that they were concerned about the impact of alcohol on children and young people. Islington had the highest rate of alcohol related hospital admissions out of the London boroughs and half of young people who had been drunk had purchased alcohol from off licences.

Members raised concern about there being several schools in this locality.

The Police stated that they had attended when the test purchase with a 14 year old (who looked 14) was conducted. A fixed penalty notice had been issued to the person who made the sale. The visit showed there were compliance issues and although there had been some improvements made, some issues remained. A 24 hour licence was held and high standards had to be demonstrated. Concern was raised that management was only engaging now that they had no choice as the review had been submitted. The Police requested that the licensee’s son should become the DPS.

The licensee’s representative stated that although the premises had fallen short of expectations by selling alcohol to a 14 year old, many licensees did not engage even when a review had been submitted. The licence was granted in 2006 and the currently licence holder and DPS had been in place since 2008. He was away when the test purchase in 2010 was conducted. There were no suggestions that the licence was not sufficiently conditioned. The review process was designed to remedy problems and management had taken action and responded well to the review. He stated that the responsible authorities had spoken in positive terms about how the premises had responded. The applicant’s representative stated that the anti-social behaviour issue in 2014 was not sufficiently linked to the licensable activities on the premises and the Challenge 25 test was subjective – the person was 23 and this was not much of a transgression.

The licensee’s representative stated that the applicant had been unable to find the invoice for the 26 cans of illicit alcohol. It was believed it had been purchased from their regular cash and carry in error, was not a large quantity and on further occasions, none had been found. The illicit alcohol also related to just one product and it was not the licence holder nor his son who made the sale.

The licensee’s representative stated that four individuals from the premises had attended the first available training session after the submission of the review, further CCTV memory storage had been purchased and was in use and a UV pen was now available to comply with conditions.

The licensee’s representative suggested that an independent inspector could conduct a test purchase every 3 months and report back to the local authority and police. Also, the licensee’s son was content to become the DPS and licence holder. It was hoped that the measures undertaken and suggested demonstrated that improvements had been made and that it was acknowledged that further improvements were required.

In response to a question from a member, the licensee’s representative stated that the premises did not respond to the Trading Standards letter dated 15 November 2018 in error.

A sub-committee member asked the person being proposed as the DPS and licensee, how he could assure the sub-committee the licensing objectives would not be breached. He replied that he would staff had regular training, would enforce Challenge 25, ensure all products had invoices and these were kept together and that he would ensure that CCTV was working and recording for 31 days. If there were any problems, he would resolve them as soon as possible.

In summary, Trading Standards stated a Challenge 25 breach was a warning for licensees. Engagement could have taken place before the review was submitted but did not. It was recommended that a medium term suspension could help the premises address issues. A criminal offence had occurred and there was a need for regular refresher training and for records to be kept.

In summary, the Licensing Authority advised that they supported removing the DPS. Concern was raised about the suggested use of an independent consultant by the licensee’s representative when there had been errors in previous information submitted by the consultant.

In summary, Public Health reiterated that they were concerned about an underage sale having been made.

In summary, the Police stated they would not give weight to checks conducted by an independent consultant and would still do checks themselves. Concern was raised about the protection of children from harm when alcohol had been purchased by a 14 year old who looked 14 years old. The Police considered the proposed new DPS and licensee to be more suitable than his father.

In summary, the licensee’s representative stated that the proposed new license holder was a licence holder with Enfield Council. He stated that Trading Standards had considered a medium term suspension as appropriate when the review was submitted and since then improvements had been made. It was suggested that any suspension should be as short as possible as it should not been used as a punishment.

RESOLVED:

That the DPS be removed and the premises licence in respect of Bagci Food Centre, 152 Central Street, London, EC1V 8AY be suspended for a period of 3 months.

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 this review had been sought following a small seizure of illicit alcohol, a failed Challenge 25 sale and one underage sale. The Sub-Committee noted the evidence provided by the Licensing Authority that there had been an underage sale in 2010 and a sale of alcohol to a visibly drunk man in 2014.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence that Trading Standards had visited the premises twice since the review was submitted and that there had been significant improvements in the management of the premises, in particular there was no illicit alcohol for sale, four employees had attended training regarding age restricted products and the licence holder and his son had engaged with Trading Standards and co-operated since the review.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the Licensing Authority that whenever visits had been conducted at the premises there had been no sign of the DPS/licensee. However, at a visit since the review was submitted, Challenge 25 notices had been put up, CCTV was working, training records and the refusals log were available, as were invoices for alcohol sold on the premises. The Sub-Committee noted that although the CCTV was working, it did not show the last 31 days, and the premises were still selling high strength alcohol. Although this was not a breach of the licence, it was contrary to Licensing Policy 14.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from Public Health as to the health impact of alcohol in relation to children and young people and it was noted that there were four schools in the vicinity of the premises.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the police that the underage sale was to a 14 year old volunteer who did look no older than 14. The police stated that on further visits there had been other breaches of the licence that were perhaps not of such severity as an underage sale but showed that there had not been great adherence to the licensing conditions. The police stated that this was a 24 hour licence and the onus was on the applicant to demonstrate best practice. The Sub-Committee noted that Trading Standards were recommending a suspension of the licence, as were the Licensing Authority, whilst the police suggested that the current DPS should be removed.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the licensee’s representative that the premises had fallen short of what was required and that the review process was designed to remedy any problems with the premises. The licensee’s representative submitted that the licensee had already taken steps to make improvements and that there was evidence that the premises were engaging in a more purposeful way with their obligations under the Licensing Act; training had been attended, further memory storage had been purchased for the CCTV and the premises now had a UV light. The Sub-Committee heard evidence that the licensee had not been able to find the purchase invoice for the illicit alcohol but it was purchased from their regular cash and carry. It was a small quantity and was an error on behalf of the premises but it was purchased in a legitimate fashion.

The Sub-Committee noted that the licensee’s representative suggested that the DPS could be removed and offered a new condition, although the Sub-Committee noted the representative’s submission that there was no suggestion that the premises were not already sufficiently conditioned.

The Sub-Committee concluded that the addition of conditions would not remedy the problems at the premises as they were already sufficiently conditioned and those conditions had been breached. The Sub-Committee noted the evidence that the DPS had never been seen at the premises by the Responsible Authorities and that it was the licensee’s son who appeared to have day to day management. Although the Sub-Committee was concerned that the licensee’s son had been in control of the premises at times when there had been breaches, in light of the recent improvements at the premises, the Sub-Committee concluded that the DPS should be removed so that the licensee’s son could then take steps to become the DPS.

The Sub-Committee concluded that a 3 month suspension would allow the DPS to be replaced and the premises to ensure that all their procedures were in line with the licence conditions, in particular in relation to CCTV. The Sub-Committee was of the view that in light of the seriousness of the underage sale, the number of breaches noted, the history of breaches, the fact that the licence was a 24 hour licence, and the need to change the DPS, a 3 month suspension was appropriate and proportionate in order to ensure that the licensing objectives were promoted. 

The Sub-Committee took into account Licensing Policy 29 in relation to reviews, Licensing Policy 8 in relation to management standards and Chapter 11 of the Code of Guidance, particularly paragraphs 11.21, 11.23 and 11.29.