Agenda item

The Licensing Officer had no additional information to report.

The Trading Standards Officer reported that a failed test purchase of alcohol by a minor had been made at the premises on 30 April 2019. A follow up letter sent by Trading Standards about this incident and to extend an invitation to a training session for staff at the premises had received no response from the licensee.

A further failed test purchase was made on 4 June 2019, resulting in the Police serving a Penalty Notice for Disorder on the seller. Although Challenge 25 posters were displayed in the premises, the licensee had said at the time of the visit that he had provided refresher training to staff on Challenge 25, but there were no records available of this training.  She suggested that a suspension of the premises licence would be appropriate in the circumstances.

The Police Licensing Officer reported on Islington’s concern about the importance of protecting children from harm. The sales of alcohol to young people under the age of 18 were concerning. He re-iterated that, although Challenge 25 posters were on display on the premises, there was no real substance paid to them by staff.  There was a lack of formal training displayed by the staff and the refusals register had not been completed since 2014.  He supported the Trading Standards request for a review of the premises licence and concurred with the view that a suspension of the licence should be considered.

The Licensing Authority’s representative stated that she fully supported Trading Services’ review. She was worried about the lack of training of staff, that a refusals’ register was not being maintained and that staff were not following the Challenge 25 policy.  She noted that high strength beers were sold at the premises and requested that they join the Council’s “Reduce Strength Campaign”.  She noted further that the licensee of these premises also managed another off licence premises nearby, which was operated 24 hours, and neither premises was involved in the campaign. The licensee had displayed a disregard for the conditions on his licence. She was particularly concerned that the Korkmaz Food Centre premises licence was from 06.00am to 02.00am.

The Public Health representative echoed the concerns of colleagues in Trading Standards, the Police and the Licensing Authority. The health risks and high levels of harm associated with the consumption of alcohol by young people was detailed in her written representation.

The Licensee’s legal representative gave some background details on the premises, stating that the licensee, who was also the DPS and a director, had purchased the premises in 2011. The premises was a supermarket and alcohol sales represented just 10% of sales, so it was not an off licence. The DPS attended the premises day to day, but the premises manager did not attend every day.  Twelve staff worked at the premises, five of whom operated the tills.  The premises was fairly large and well established.  The breach of condition was very serious and went to the heart of the most important licensing condition. The licensee accepted that the sale of alcohol made to a person under 18 was unacceptable. The DPS had been out of the country when the letter from Trading Standards was received. However, the premises manager, who was at the premises, had not picked up the letter.  The premises manager carried out training of the staff when notifications came around from the Licensing Authority. When the test purchase was made on 4 June 2019, the licensee was not there as he was dealing with health and safety matters. The staff member who had sold the alcohol to the young person had just returned to work that day. Although he had received training in Challenge 25, he fell short of what was required. This was a failure of management which should have been more robust.   The high strength Perla beer had been purchased in good faith from Hares Wines, but was no longer stocked or for sale. In fact, only beer which bore the English language labelling was for sale.  

He went on to describe the steps which the licensee had taken to ensure confidence in the manager:

i) Premises staff had received formal training at a properly accredited virtual college. The five staff who operated the tills had attended the four to five days training ( - copies of  their certificates were shown to the Sub-Committee)

ii) A shadowing regime had been instigated, whereby staff who needed to challenge young people buying alcohol were shadowed and advised on approaches

iii) A new refusals register had been introduced ( - which was passed to the Sub-Committee for review). The register had operated since the day after the test purchase, indicating that the licensee had acted quickly.

iv) Challenge 25 posters were on display in the premises and only alcohol with English language labelling was on display.

In addition, the licensee would abide by the full range of conditions and the following proposed new condition: “No alcohol to be sold unless a personal licence holder is on the premises”, to ensure that if a member of staff was unsure of what to do if a young person wanted to purchase alcohol, they could seek advice from a manager. The licensee accepted that the breach of conditions on his licence was serious and, if he had not already taken steps to reassure the Licensing Authority that he understood his role as a manager, then he could understand why the Council would need “persuading that the licensee is fit to hold a licence…”, as set out on page 100 of the agenda pack.  The licensee was due to attend licensing training on 13 August 2019. The problems had been associated with the manager and they would be remedied by training and he suggested that a suspension would be disproportionate.

In response to members’ questions, the licensee’s legal representative stated that the manager owned two premises, with a total of 14 staff.  Five staff in the larger premises had been trained and two in the smaller shop, the latter of which had traded for 18 years.

In response to members’ observations that the premises were not well managed and whether this could be attributed to complacency or the need for training to be updated, the licensee’s legal representative suggested that it was a bit of both and that the licensee had traded for so long with no problems.

Referring to page 114 of the agenda pack, a member of the Sub-Committee queried why the alcohol refusals register had not been maintained since 20 January 2014 and the tobacco refusals register not since 2017. The licensee said that he had been away and it was a mistake that neither register had been completed by staff in his absence.   However, both registers would be maintained going forward. In response to a further question about the training he had attended, the licensee said that he and two members of staff had retrained and he pointed out that he had held his licence for ten years.

In summary, the Trading Standards’ representative stated the DPS and licensee had not always been on the premises when she had visited. The breaches of conditions related to mis-management.  Although some action had been taken by the licensee to address the breaches, the Council needed to be reassured that all conditions on the licence were being adhered to. In order to ensure that no harm could be caused to young people, she suggested that a suspension would be appropriate.

The Police’s representative noted the steps taken by the licensee to address the breaches of condition and suggested that further conditions be added to the licence as follows: “No alcohol over 6.5% strength to be sold on the premises” and “No alcohol to be sold on the premises unless a licence holder is on the premises”

The Licensing Authority’s representative stated that, considering the hours of operation of the premises, from 06.00am to 02.00am, and given that there were other off licences nearby operating a 24 hour alcohol licence, she supported Trading Standards’ application for a suspension of the premises licence.

In summary, the licensee’s representative stated that the licensee did not prioritise profit for his business.  He had a well established and long history of compliance with the conditions of his licence.  He could have acted more quickly in response to the communications from the Council about the breaches of condition. His client had been honest in acknowledging his complacency and absence of training for staff  in sales to young people. However, suspension of the licence would be disproportionate.  The new condition proposed viz “No alcohol to be sold unless a personal licence holder is on the premises” went to the heart of the matter. His client would accept the other new condition about not selling very strong strength alcohol

RESOLVED:

(a) That the licence in respect of Korkmaz Food Centre, 363-365 Holloway Road, London N7 ORN be suspended for a period of 28 days.

(b) That the following condition be added to the licence:

No beer, lager, cider or spirit mixer over 6.5% to be sold on the premises.

Reasons for the decision

The Sub-Committee considered all the written submissions and the oral submissions from the Licensing Authority, the Police and Public Health, as responsible authorities and the applicant’s representative.  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 noted that the premises was situated in the Holloway and Finsbury cumulative impact area where alcohol induced based anti-social behaviour and crime was a local concern often in connection with the sale of alcohol to underage children.

The management of the premises had been shown to be inadequate with significant compliance and training failures, which had led to the test purchase failure on 4 June 2019.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from Trading Standards that, although Challenge 25 posters were displayed in the shop, there was no evidence of staff having been trained and that the refusals logs had not been completed since 2014 for alcohol and 2017 for tobacco.

The Sub-Committee noted that, in response to a request from Trading Standards, the licensee had agreed that no high strength beers would be sold on the premises.

The Sub-Committee noted the representations made by the licensee’s legal adviser in relation to action to be taken by the licensee to ensure good management in accordance with the Licensing Conditions, namely: i) formal licensing training had been undertaken by the licensee and his staff at an accredited college ii) a shadowing regime had been instigated to enable staff to be confident in challenging anyone who looked underage and wanted to purchase alcohol  iii) a new refusals book was being used and iv) Challenge 25 posters were on display in the premises and all alcohol with non-English labelling had been removed.

The Sub-Committee concluded that the proportionate and reasonable response to the application was to suspend the licence for 28 days and to add the additional condition agreed to by the licensee in relation to the strength of alcohol sold at the premises.