Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that there had been an application for a new designated premises supervisor.  There was unlikely to be any objections to this application.  Details of a compliance check which had taken place on the 25 October 2019 were at page 67 of the agenda.

The trading standards officer reported that free training had been offered but had not been taken up by the licensee. It was stated that on the 20 August 2019 the premises licence holder sold alcohol to a 14-year old.  The police were in attendance.  During the visit it was noted that beers were on sale with no English labelling which was illegal. Nine of the seventeen licence conditions were being breached on the day of attendance. The change in designated premises supervisor (dps) was seen as a positive step in the first instance, however, the sale of alcohol to a person underage did take place and the Sub-Committee was asked to consider paragraph 11.27 of the Home Office guidance which stated that the sale of alcohol to minors was a criminal activity and should be treated particularly seriously.

In response to questions it was noted that an email had been sent on the 30 November 2018 which offered free training by Trading Standards and this had not been responded to by the licensee.  This was a standard offer made to all applicants. The test purchase visit was made due to intelligence received.    Following the review application, the applicant had appointed a consultant and a change of designated premises supervisor had been proposed.  These had both been positive steps.

The public health officer referred the Sub-Committee to the representation on pages 58 and 59 of the agenda.  It was highlighted that Islington had the highest rate of alcohol specific admissions in London among those under 18 years.

The licensing authority referred the Sub-Committee to the representation on pages 56/57 of the agenda. It was advised in the representation that a short suspension be considered following the compliance visit on the 25 October 2019.

In response to questions it was noted that there had still been some issues outstanding at the compliance visit. The trading standards officer reported that the replacement of the designated premises supervisor was not an exceptional measure but was considered normal when a licence was being reviewed. It was noted that a suspension could be used as a punishment and the police stated that the licensee could use this time to engage with trading standards and improve the training for staff.

The licensee’s representative stated that the licensee apologises for the breaches.  This was a family business. The father was the licence holder but the recent problems had encouraged the rest of the family to become involved in the business. The proposed dps was the daughter of the licensee.  She attended the premises daily as did the son of the licence holder. They took responsible action following the review by employing a consultant to make sure they were compliant. The dps was being changed.  Training had been provided in both English and Turkish.  Staff would attend the training offered by Trading Standards. The legal representative offered additional conditions; that a personal licence holder would be on the premises at all times when alcohol was sold, that the father would not have any involvement in licensable activities on the premises and that a new till system would be installed. It was stated that a suspension would reflect the seriousness of the breaches and there would be consequences.  The licensee recognised that measures needed to be taken. It was accepted that the responsibility for sales was with the licence holder however, the alcohol was all purchased from a cash and carry and was assumed to be legal.  Officers accepted that there had been improvements and the Sub-Committee were asked to suspend the licence rather than remove it.

In response to questions it was noted that speaking/understanding English may have been an issue where the licence holder was concerned but not for the rest of the family. There was concern that the letter from Trading Standards offering free training had been ignored. The legal representative stated that the family had sought help. He had been unaware that free training had been offered.  In response to a question from the Sub-Committee, the proposed dps outlined the four licensing objectives. It was noted that the current licence holder would not be involved in licensable activities. The legal representative stated that he would still prefer the licence holder to have some involvement in the business but accepted it would not be for licensable activities. There would be a personal licence holder on the premises in any event.

In summary, the trading standards officer welcomed a condition regarding a till prompt in addition to a suspension of the licence and also requested a condition that invoices be kept available for inspection.

The licensing authority stated that suspension should be considered.

The licensee’s representative stated that suspension should be considered by the Sub-Committee with some modifications to conditions including a till prompt and that invoices would be made available and kept for a period of 12 months.

RESOLVED

That the premises licence, in respect of Smart Save Supermarket, 1-2 Hillmarton Terrace, N7 9JR be suspended for a period of three months and modified to add the following conditions to the licence:-

·         That a till system be installed giving an age till prompt at the point of sale.

·         That the current licensee, Mr Kazim Cinpolat senior, will not be involved in any licensable activities at the premises.

·         That a personal licence holder, other than Mr Kazim Cinpolat senior, be present at all times that the premises is open for licensable activities.

·         The licensee shall keep invoices for its purchase of all age restricted products from its suppliers, which should be made available for inspection upon request by the licensing team, police or trading standards.

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 noted that the premises licence was issued on the 8January 2019 and the test purchase was carried out on the 20 August 2019 following intelligence received by Trading Standards. The Sub-Committee noted that the seller of the alcohol was the premises licence holder and designated premises supervisor (dps) and that these were aggravating factors. The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the Police that, on the 20 August 2019, nine breaches of the licensing conditions were also observed. The Sub-Committee also noted that high strength polish beer, which did not have English labelling on it, was available for sale at the premises.

The Sub-Committee noted Trading Standards submissions that, on the face of it, the licensee had taken steps to address the issues by employing a consultant and changing the dps.  However, the licensee had still failed to take up the offer of training from Trading Standards and that there were further measures that could be implemented at the premises to promote the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee noted the submissions from the licensee as to how a period of suspension would be effectively used to promote the licensing objectives and to ensure that the premises were compliant. The Sub-Committee heard from Trading Standards and the Licensing Authority that the imposition of a suspension would serve both as a deterrent and allow the premises to implement the necessary improvements. The Sub-Committee also noted the submissions from Public Health regarding the association of alcohol use in young people with a range of health risks and also that Islington had the highest rate of alcohol specific admissions in London among those under 18 years.

The Sub-Committee considered paragraphs 11.27 and 11.28 of the Home Office revised guidance.  The Sub-Committee noted that the sale of alcohol to minors was a criminal activity to be treated particularly seriously on review. The guidance set out that revocation of the licence should be seriously considered and that review procedures should be used effectively to deter such criminal activity.

The Sub-Committee took into account Licensing Policy 29 in relation to reviews, Licensing Policy 8 in relation to management standards and Licensing policy 28 which stated that the local authority expected the licensee to implement appropriate measures including Challenge 25.

The Sub-Committee decided that it was reasonable and proportionate to suspend the premises licence in view of the significant failures at the premises. The Sub-Committee concluded that revocation was not appropriate as the licensee had taken steps to promote the licensing objectives, had appointed a new dps and had offered the addition of conditions to the licence. However, in view of the seriousness of the failures, in particular the sale of alcohol to the 14-year old volunteer by the licensee/dps, the Sub-Committee concluded that the maximum suspension of three months should be imposed as both a deterrent and to allow time for the Trading Standard training to take place and the other measures to be implemented.