Agenda item

The licensing authority reported that their representation was on pages 71-73 of the agenda.  The licensing team had visited the premises on Friday 14 June in the evening and noted that the premises was closed.  There were two licensees for this premises.  Should it not be considered necessary to revoke the licence, it was suggested that there may be the option of suspending the licence and removing the designated premises supervisor (DPS).  There was a possibility that the wife of the DPS could obtain a personal licence.

The trading standards officer reported that the licensee failed a Challenge 25 test purchase operation in January 2019.  The licensee was invited to training.  The training was not booked by the licensee. A further test purchase was held in March 2019 but no sale occurred. The licensee had failed to engage, had not submitted a minor variation and failed to attend the free session for licensees.

The community safety officer reported that there had been approximately 11 complaints over the past year or so about the service users and alcohol related incidents.  The two off licences B and B and Silver Star were nearby. In May, two service users were seen drinking by the shop, although it was accepted that the alcohol may not have come from this premises.

The licensee stated that he had nothing further to add to the statement he had made in the previous case for Silver Star.  (see minute 65)

In response to questions it was noted that the difference between the two premises was that B and B was more focussed on by his wife.  It was noted this his wife did not have a personal licence and she was unable to attend the meeting as she had family at home.

RESOLVED

That the premises licence, in respect of B and B Convenience Store, 271 New North Road, N1 7AA, be suspended and modified as follows:-

a)            The designated premises supervisor be removed from the licence.

b)            That the following conditions be applied to the licence.

·         No high strength beer, ager or cider of 6.5 % abv or above shall be sold other than premium beer, lager or cider.

·         No single cans are permitted to be sold at the premises

·         The licensee shall adopt a ‘Challenge 25’ policy and promote it through the prominent display of posters.

·         The licensee shall put arrangements in place to ensure that before serving alcohol to persons they believe to be less than 25, staff ask to see accredited proof of age: that is, proof of age cards carrying the ‘PASS’ logo (and no others), a passport, or UK Driving Licence bearing the photograph and date of birth of the bearer.

·         The licensee shall ensure that staff are trained about age restricted products and ensure that they sign to confirm that they have understood the training.  The licensee shall keep records of training and instructions given to staff, detailing the areas covered, and make them available for inspection upon request by the licensing team, police or trading standards.

·         The licensee shall require staff to note any refusals to sell to young people in a refusals log.  The refusals log shall be made available for inspection upon request by the licensing team, police or trading standards.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Sub-Committee observed that Mr Patel was joint owner of these premises with his wife and was also the designated premises supervisor (DPS). They had just heard evidence in a review of the Silver Star, where he was also DPS and licence holder, earlier at the meeting. However, they emphasised that this was a different shop and there were different circumstances, although the two shops were very close to each other.

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 the Licensing Authority that they recommended revocation but otherwise a suspension of up to three months with the removal of Mr Patel as dps and additional conditions. It was suggested that a way forward for the licence holder might be for Mrs Patel to obtain a personal licence and apply as DPS.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the Trading Standards team that there had been a Challenge 25 failure.  This was not a condition of the licence but good practice and they had invited the licence holders to apply for a variation to the premises licence to include a Challenge 25 condition and come to free training. There had been no response. There had been no sale on test purchase to an underage person. They recommended adding further conditions.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the Community Safety officer that local residents had complained about the behaviour of drunken hostel users from a local hostel which provided for adult men with complex mental health issues and which was in the vicinity. On the 29 May, two service users were seen drinking by the corner shop, being noisy and approaching people.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the licensee that he did not wish to add anything to what he had said in the previous case in relation to the Silver Star. 

In response to questions he said that his wife did not have a personal licence and that the difference between these premises and the Silver Star was that they managed B and B jointly. Different staff were employed at the two shops. When asked why his wife was not present at the meeting, he said that she was looking after their children.

The Sub-Committee took into account Licensing Policy 29 in relation to reviews and Licensing Policy 8 in relation to management standards. The licence holders had failed to implement advice given by the responsible authorities about removing high strength alcohol despite Mr Patel signing up to an initiative to do so.  He had failed to comply with it. They had not responded to a letter from trading standards suggesting a minor variation to include Challenge 25 and had not sought advice from the responsible authorities. They took into account Licensing policy 14 which states that the local authority expects licensees to operate to the highest standards of management and to co-operate with responsible authorities to prevent alcohol induced crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour in the near vicinity of the premises and licensing policy 28 which states that the local authority expects the licensee to implement appropriate measures including Challenge 25.