Agenda item

The Licensing Officer had no additional information to report.

The Trading Standards representative reported that the premises had been included as part of a visit to all off licences in the Highbury Barn and Blackstock Road area on 29 May 2019 to remind them of the importance of checking young people’s identification, operating Challenge 25 and maintaining refusal and training registers.  Premises in this particular area were being targeted as information had been received from an Islington social worker that a 15 year old client of theirs had been repeatedly hospitalised after consuming alcohol purchased from off licences in the area. The social worker had indicated on the day following the visit by Trading Standards that it was this particular premises, Shivas Newsagent, who had sold the alcohol to the young person concerned.  During the visit, the licensee appeared to be unaware of his responsibilities as a manager of a licensed premises and was not aware that it was an offence to sell alcohol to a person under the age of 18 years of age and that he did not keep a refusals register as he had never refused a sale. The Trading Standards representative advised him to attend the next training session on age restricted products and licensee responsibilities.  She recommended that, as there were currently no additional conditions on the licence, a short term suspension of the licence would be appropriate to enable the Licensing policies and procedures to be put in place.

In response to a question from a member of the Sub-Committee as to whether the young person who had been hospitalised had been interviewed, the Trading Standards representative confirmed that they had not as no criminal proceedings had been instigated.   There were a number of licensed premises in this vicinity and it would be difficult to prove that all of the alcohol purchases made by the 15 year old who had been hospitalised came from Shivas Newsagent.

The Trading Standards’ representative reported that a sale from the premises to an under age person had been made on 4 June 2019 by the licensee and DPS of the premises, who had been spoken to on 29 May 2019, during a visit to the premises.

In response to a question from a member of the Sub-Committee, she said that she had been outside the premises while the sale was made but had subsequently entered with Police officers once the sale had been made. She confirmed that a standard test purchase had taken place and that there had been no distractions to the seller whilst the purchase took place.  A member of the Sub-Committee noted a reference on in the agenda pack to Polish lager available for sale on the premises and queried whether duty had been paid on this and whether enquiries had been made as to where it was purchased.  The Trading Standards representative said that no invoices had been produced and that she had been advised that the alcohol was on the premises when the lease transferred to the current licensee. She was aware that it was sold by some wholesalers.

The Trading Standards representative reminded the licensee and his representative that the Licensing Authority expected the highest standards of management in licensed premises and would expect a DPS to have knowledge of all mandatory licence conditions.  There was no refusals register on the premises and the licensee appeared to have no knowledge or understanding of the policy for challenging those aged under 25 years.  She recommended a long suspension or revocation of the licence in these circumstances.  If a suspension was agreed, she recommended that the conditions set out on page 87 and 88 of the agenda pack be applied to the licence. In addition, she hoped that the licensee would participate fully in Challenge 25 and the campaign to reduce the sale of strong alcohol.

The Police representative supported Trading Standards’ review of the licence of this premises.  He confirmed that a Police Officer had entered the premises when the test purchase was made and that the premises was quiet, with no distractions for the licensee who had made the sale.  The area in which the premises was situated was known for anti-social behaviour and high level crime. Of particular concern was that the licensee had no knowledge of the Licensing Authority’s Challenge 25 initiative.  He noted that the refusals log had not been completed for a number of years.  The Police worked with partners to ensure safeguarding of vulnerable young people and children.  He suggested that a lengthy suspension at least be considered and supported the inclusion of the additional conditions suggested by the Licensing Authority.

The Public Health representative stated that her written representations had been included in the agenda pack. She supported the additional recommendations suggested by Trading Standards and the Licensing Authority.

The licensee’s legal representative extended apologies from the licensee for the breach of conditions on his licence. He stated that the licensee was on his own in the shop at the time of the test purchase and that an adult and a youth had entered the premises together. The adult, who unknown to the licensee was a Police Officer, had watched the licensee. The licensee said that this had distracted and stressed him and caused him not to pay as much attention to the young person as he should have. The licensee had described the young person to be as tall as himself and wearing a peaked cap. 

The licensee’s legal representative then went on to say that the licensee had “got off on the wrong foot” with the Trading Standards Officer when she visited.  English was not his first language and there were misunderstandings.   The licensee was aware that he should not sell alcohol to under 18s and of the requirements of the Challenge 25 policy. The licensee had held the licence for just over a year, after a former director had been removed.  This had all caused stress and nervousness to the licensee and he had language problems.  The licensee had refused sales in the past.  The Perla beer found by the Trading Standards Officer was part of the stock left behind by the previous owner.  The licensee had now disposed of this stock and also the high strength alcohol. In addition, the licensee had engaged in “self-directed” licensing training, through reading Islington’s Licensing Policy documents. Copies of the documents which the licensee had read were passed around, together with a copy of the refusals register.  Referring to the additional conditions suggested by the responsible authorities, including the display of posters on Challenge 25 and the installation and maintenance of CCTV, the legal representative said that the licensee   had a CCTV system and that he had purchased a monitor and employed and engineer to install it.  He passed to members of the Sub-Committee copies of the Challenge 25 posters now displayed on the premises and reiterated that the Perla beer and high alcohol beers were no longer for sale.  He requested the Sub-Committee not to revoke the licence or to impose a lengthy suspension as this would devastate the licensee’s business and his family.  He apologised for the breach of conditions and stated that the licensee had paid out £1500 in legal fees and for CCTV installation.  A repetition of the breach of conditions was unlikely and the licensee realised that he might be a target for future test.  The legal representative stated that the licensee had addressed the concerns raised by the responsible authorities and noted that some of the suggested conditions on pages 87 and 88 of the agenda pack were duplicated.  In addition, the licensee was due to attend licensing training on 13 August 2019.  He suggested that a two week suspension, with the additional conditions suggested by the responsible authorities, would be proportionate.

In response to a question from a member of the Sub-Committee about the numbers working in the shop and why training offered by the Licensing Authority had been refused, the legal representative stated that training had not been refused, but it was due to crossed wires and language problems. The licensee was now booked on licensing training. A member suggested that the ability to successfully intercept under age alcohol purchasers depended on training and good relationships between licensees and their customers and that a good understanding of English would facilitate this.  The Sub-Committee needed reassurance that the licensee would be competent to interrogate any young people coming into his premises to purchase alcohol who he was not convinced were at least 18 years old.  The legal representative said that the licensee spoke English reasonably well and it was because he found himself in a stressful situation that his speech became garbled.

The legal representative said that the licensee had paid too much attention to what he thought was a shoplifter at the time that the test purchase was being made.

In response to a question from a member of the Sub-Committee, the licensee’s representative said that the licensee had had no training prior to taking the licence on in March 2018 and the experience with Trading Standards had taught him that he needed this training.  The Sub-Committee member pointed out that the licensee had been running the premises for the past fifteen months, before receipt of the letter of 29 May 2019 from the Council’s Trading Standards Officer. He asked whether the licensee had had any training during that period and whether there was any evidence that anyone had been refused a sale.   The legal representative said that there was no evidence as a refusals register had not been maintained, although the licensee had told him that he had refused sales in the past. He maintained that the licensee and the Trading Standards Officer “had not understood each other”.

A member of the Sub-Committee queried whether, following the letter of 29 May 2019 from Trading Standards, which indicated the poor operational standards at the premises, the licensee had taken steps to ensure that Challenge 25 was being implemented.  The legal representative passed a copy of the training log to members of the Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee noted that it took the discovery of sale of alcohol during the test purchase to force the licensee to take licensing training.  The legal representative pointed out that the licensing training undertaken by the licensee had been obtained from a booklet on Islington’s website on licensing requirements and Challenge 25. In response to a question, the licensee said that he and his sister had obtained the information from the Council’s website.   The Sub-Committee noted that this did not constitute formal training.

It was noted that the licensee had held a personal licence since 1998 and, as part of that, he would have received two days licensing training, with a certificate from Hackney Council.   The Sub-Committee asked for any proof that the licensing training had taken place.  The Licensing Officer suggested that Hackney Council, who had granted his licence, would have issued a certificate.

In summary, the Trading Standards officer said that the young person making the test purchase was not wearing a cap at the time.  He would not have been permitted to as there were rules about how a young person used in a test purchase should be attired.  She understood that English was not the licensee’s first language.  The visit by Trading Standards had been a friendly one, with an invitation to training.  The licensee had not contacted her after receipt of her letter of 29 May 2019.

The Licensing Authority’s representative said that there appeared to be some confusion about the personal licence held by the licensee, granted by Hackney Council. Given that the Licensing Act came into force in 2005, the licensee would have had to attend licensing training to obtain a new premises licence. She queried whether his personal licence was still valid and whether he had held a premises licence in 1998.  The applicant’s legal representative said that it appeared that the licensee’s training had taken place a long time ago and not since the Licensing Act had been introduced.

The Police’s representative commented on the consequences of young people drinking alcohol and, in particular, the 15 year old who had been hospitalised as a result of drinking alcohol sold either from these premises, or another in the vicinity.  As a personal licence holder, the licensee should act responsibly. He had declined training in the past and was only now accepting it.  The Police would question whether the licensee could run the premises safely.

The applicant’s legal representative said that the licensee admitted a breach of conditions on the sale of alcohol to a person under 18. His licensing training had taken place a long time ago.  The licensee had admitted that he had not responded as well as he should to the letter from Trading Standards and the invitation to attend training.  However, he had learned from his mistakes and now displayed Challenge 25 posters on the premises, had CCTV installed and was booked onto licensing training.  The Police had reasonable concerns but these were covered by the conditions which would be applied to the licence, including the use of CCTV during opening hours. He asked for a second chance for the licensee and suggested a short suspension of the licence, with the additional recommendations suggested by the responsible authorities.

RESOLVED:

That the licence in respect of Shivas Newsagent, 108 Highbury Park, N5 2XE be suspended for a period of 2 months.

That the additional conditions set out on pages 87 to 88 of the agenda  be included on the suspended licence, subject to the deletion of conditions 4 and 14.

Reasons for the decision

The Licensing Sub-Committee considered all the written submissions and the oral submissions made at the hearing by Trading Standards, the Police, Public Health, the Licensing Authority and the licensee and his Counsel. The Sub-Committee reached the decision having given consideration to the Licensing Act 2003, as amended, its regulations, the national guidance and the Council’s Licensing Policy.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the Council’s Trading Standards Service representative that a formal test purchase had been conducted on 4 June 2019 at the premises and that one 440ml can of Guinness Draught, with an ABV of 4.1%, had been sold to a person under the age of 18. Following enquiries from the Trading Standards Officer and Police Officer who had carried out this visit, the licensee and DPS of the premises acknowledged that he did not keep a refusals log. He claimed that he had refused sales in the past, but no records were produced. In addition, Trading Standards had been notified by a social worker that a 15 year old client had been repeatedly hospitalised after consuming alcohol purchased from these premises and others in the area. However, as the young person concerned had not been interviewed, there was no evidence that the alcohol consumed by the young person came directly from these premises.

The Sub-Committee considered the recommendation of the Responsible Authorities that the licence should be revoked, or alternatively suspended, and that additional conditions be added to the licence. The Licensing Authority recommended specific additional conditions.

The Sub-Committee noted the apparent inability of the licensee to manage the premises, given his apparent lack of training in licensing matters.

The Sub-Committee decided not to revoke the licence at this stage. It determined that a two months’ suspension, coupled with the additional conditions as recommended by the Licensing Authority, was a proportionate and reasonable response to the application.

The two months suspension would allow sufficient time to the licensee to implement policies to comply with the conditions and to receive the appropriate training which should enable the licensee to meet the licensing objectives.

Note of the Sub-Committee

The Sub-Committee recommended that the position of the personal licence held by Mr Altun be clarified.