Agenda item

The licensing officer introduced all parties. She stated that additional documents from the licensee had been circulated and that on 24 February 2022 an application had been made to transfer the licence.

The Trading Standards officer reported that this review had been brought following a visit to the premises on 2 August 2021 during which a large quantity of illicit tobacco and cigarettes were found on the premises. The cigarettes and tobacco were not in plain packaging and had been hidden in a sophisticated way in the till as well as in a bread bin and behind the counter.  Nearly 200 packs of 20 cigarettes were found. The Trading Standards officer suggested that this would indicate sales of illicit cigarettes and tobacco had been occurring for some time and the management did not expect this to be discovered.

The Trading Standards officer stated that the person in charge of the premises at the time of the visit said that she did not work there and was only looking after the shop, but this seemed implausible as she knew her way around the shop. She would not give her details to the officer.

The Trading Standards officer stated that the DPS for the premises claimed to have no knowledge as to what had happened because she had been away, which again seemed implausible. The Trading Standards officer confirmed that they had zero confidence in the DPS, who had applied for the licence to be transferred to her, and that in the view of Trading Standards, the licence should be revoked.

The Police advised that they first became aware of the current management of the premises in May 2020, but none of the proper notifications had been given. The management had been encouraged to engage with the Police and the licensing officers. The Police visited the premises again in November 2020 and again encouraged the management to engage with responsible authorities. In January 2021, the licence was transferred to Alands International Market Limited but it was noted that the premises was not being run in accordance with the licence and the management was encouraged to seek a variation. In March 2021, the DPS changed to the current DPS after she obtained her personal licence. The DPS was again encouraged to seek a minor variation. When the minor variation application was eventually made it was rejected as it included an attempt to extend the operating hours to 2am. The Police again asked the DPS to put in a variation request but this was not done.

The Police stated they had asked for CCTV footage to be submitted which was in line with a condition of the licence. However management had stated that the CCTV was not working and so they were unable to provide footage. Management were also unable to provide the full name of the person in charge of the premises at the time of the Trading Standards visit. Management had failed to engage with the Police since. The Police stated they had no confidence that the premises was under good management or complying with the current licence and that they fully supported the Trading Standards review and request for the licence to be revoked.

The Licensing Authority stated that the premises was not demonstrating the high standards of management expected from licence holders. The Licensing Authority fully supported the review and that the licence should be revoked.

In response to questions, the Trading Standards officer expressed the view that moving forward with the current premises management was not possible as they did not admit that they had done anything wrong, a large amount of illicit cigarettes and tobacco had been found, the management had been unwilling to co-operate in the investigation and Trading Standards had no confidence in the management.

The DPS stated that she was not at the premises at the time of the Trading Standards visit and that it was not her fault that illicit cigarettes had been found. The DPS stated that she knew the rules, that it was her mistake to not be present but she had problems and she had left it to her partner to arrange for cover at the premises. The DPS confirmed that she had spoken on the phone to the woman who had been left in charge of the premises and had explained to her the rules.

In response to a question, the DPS stated that Aland International Market was no longer active. She had not realised she needed to apply for a transfer of the licence until she spoke to the licensing officer. She had now applied. She stated that Aland International Market had issues with payments and had closed quickly.

In response to questions, the DPS stated that she knew that she had to check for ID and give training to staff if she was going to be absent from the premises. She stated that she told the staff everything she had learnt from the personal licence course. She admitted that the CCTV was not working at the time of the visit (or when the premises was burgled on 15 August 2021) but stated that a new company would be coming in every 30-40 days to refresh, check and add memory to the CCTV system.

In summary, the Trading Standards officer stated they had no confidence in the DPS and were concerned about a lack of integrity. The Police stated the importance of operating in accordance with the conditions of a licence and whilst it was acknowledged that technical errors could occur with CCTV, there was no reason why the management did not respond to the Police in 6 months and not making variations where necessary, demonstrated a lack of respect for the Local Authority, Trading Standards and Police. The Licensing Authority stated that the DPS had not explained how the illicit cigarettes and tobacco came to be on the premises, there had been poor management and management had not complied with conditions. In summary, the DPS stated that there had been small omissions but this had not been her intention.

RESOLVED:

That the premises licence in respect of 621 Holloway Road, N19 5SS be revoked.

REASONS FOR DECISION

This meeting was facilitated by Zoom.

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 Trading Standards officer that a review had been brought following a visit to the premises during which a large quantity of illicit tobacco and cigarettes were found on the premises. The cigarettes and tobacco were not in plain packaging and had been hidden in a sophisticated way in the till.  The person in charge of the premises at the time of the visit said that she did not work there and was only looking after the shop, but this seemed implausible as she knew her way around the shop. The DPS for the premises claimed to have no idea as to what had happened because she had been away, which again seemed implausible. The Trading Standards officer confirmed that they had zero confidence in the DPS, who had applied for the licence to be transferred to her, and that in the view of Trading Standards, the licence should be revoked.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the police that they first became aware of the current management of the premises in May 2020, but none of the proper notifications had been given. The management had been encouraged to engage with the police and the licensing officers. The police visited the premises again in November 2020 and again encouraged the management to engage with responsible authorities. In January 2021, the licence was transferred to Alands International Market Limited but it was noted that the premises was not being run in accordance with the licence and the management was encouraged to seek a variation. In March 2021, the DPS changed to the current DPS after she obtained her personal licence. The DPS was again encouraged to seek a minor variation. When the minor variation application was eventually made it was rejected as it included an attempt to extend the operating hours to 2am. The police again asked the DPS to put in a variation request but this was not done.

The Sub-Committee heard further from the police that the premises was unable to provide CCTV footage, despite this being a condition of the licence. Management were also unable to provide the full name of the person in charge of the premises at the time of the Trading Standards visit. Management had failed to engage with the police since. The police had no confidence that the premises was under good management or complying with the current licence and fully supported the Trading Standards review and decision to ask for revocation.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the Licensing Authority that the premises was not demonstrating the high standards of management expected from licence holders. The licensing authority fully supported the review and that the licence should be revoked.

The Sub-Committee noted that Trading Standards, in response to questions, expressed the view that moving forward with the current premises management was not possible as they did not admit that they had done anything wrong.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the DPS that she was not at the premises at the time of the Trading Standards visit and that it was not her fault that illicit cigarettes had been found. The DPS stated that she knew the rules, that it was her mistake to not be present but she had problems and she had left it to her partner to arrange for cover at the premises. The DPS confirmed that she had spoken on the phone to the woman who had been left in charge of the premises and had explained to her the rules. In response to questions the DPS stated that she knew that she had to check for ID and give training to staff if she was going to be absent from the premises. She stated that she told the staff everything she had learnt from the personal licence course. She admitted that the CCTV was not working at the time of the visit but stated that a new company would be coming in every 30-40 days to check.

The Sub-Committee was concerned that the premises management fell far short of the high standards required of licence holders in the borough. The DPS had not demonstrated any awareness of the current conditions on the licence or Islington’s licensing policies. The DPS had failed to give a satisfactory explanation with regard to the large quantity of illicit tobacco products found on the premises, nor had the DPS been able to properly explain who had been in charge of the premises on the day of the visit or why she had been unable to even provide the person’s name.  There had been a worrying lack of engagement with responsible authorities dating back to well before the review was sought.

The Sub-Committee concluded that the failures at the premises could not be remedied by the imposition of further conditions as it was not clear that current conditions were being complied with. The Sub-Committee had been informed that Alands International Market Limited had dissolved and that the DPS was seeking a transfer of the licence to her company. In these circumstances, the Sub-Committee concluded that the removal of the DPS would not promote the licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee noted that Trading Standards was of the view that little could be done to work with the current management moving forward, and so concluded that revocation of the licence was necessary to promote the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee concluded that in light of the seriousness of the breaches of the licence, the quantity of illicit tobacco products found, the manner in which they were hidden and the management’s failure to engage with responsible authorities, it was necessary and proportionate to revoke the licence in order to promote the licensing objectives.