Agenda item

The licensing officer reported that additional papers had been circulated from Trading Standards.  These would be interleaved with the agenda papers.

The trading standards officer reported that there had been a large seizure of illicit goods in 2014.  Written advice had previously been sent to the licensee and if this advice had been followed, the licensee would have recognised that the alcohol was illicit. The licence could have been reviewed at this time but it was agreed that additional conditions be added to the licence.  Following a tip off, the premises were visited in November 2015 and illegal tobacco was found and Romanian beer. The licensee stated that some of the beer had been purchased from a caller to the shop, as was the case when goods were seized in 2014. The licensee was unwilling to take steps to prevent this from happening. There were no concerns regarding underage sales.  He considered the licensee to be dishonest and not suitable to be a licensee in Islington.

In response to questions it was noted that at the first visit in 2014, 39.4 litres of spirits, 65 bottles of cheap Italian wine and ½ kilo of shisha tobacco were seized. If advice had been followed, this would have been recognised as being illicit. Training was attended in November 2014 and the decision was taken not to review the licence.  A variation to the licence was made in summer 2015 and then there was a further seizure in November 2015.

The police stated that he fully supported the review of the licence.  Management standards were not as required.  Recent training had taken place.  He did not consider that additional conditions would help. 

In response to questions the police stated that following the first seizure and the training advice he would not expect illegal tobacco to be on the premises. There could be a misunderstanding on the first instance but not following the training and high input given by trading standards following the first seizure. The licensee claimed that the tobacco was for personal use. At interview he had stated that he had hidden them under the counter as he did not want his staff to smoke or sell them. There were 18 packets of cigarettes found.  This was considered to be a legitimate amount if buying from duty free but not for personal use.

The licensee’s representative stated that there was no issue wit the facts.  Cigarettes had been found which were for personal use and these should not have been stored in the shop. There was a reason for a lack of confidence in the designated premises supervisor.  The licensee realised the serious mistake he had made and in order to protect the livelihoods of four staff he had decided to sell the business.  He had found a potential buyer to buy the leasehold and the business. The sale was anticipated to go though in another two months.  One employee was a licence holder and would work under the new designated premises supervisor.  The licensee’s representative asked that the licence be suspended for three months for the sale to proceed and prevent hardship to employees.  He stated that the Sub-Committee could have confidence that the new designated premises supervisor would comply with the licence conditions.

In response to questions it was stated that the licensee was not anticipating that he would have any involvement in the business. The licensee had indicated that the cigarettes were for personal use but accepted that they should have been stored elsewhere.  When asked for details of the management regime that would be in place after the business was sold, the licensee’s representative commented that the person purchasing would have to apply to become the designated premises supervisor and that he was not acting for the new proposed designated premises supervisor.

In summary, the trading standards officer stated that the licensee had stated he only smoked at work and not at home.  He had informed them that he had not considered keeping the cigarettes in the car.  The officer still recommended revocation, however, should there be a suspension of the licence he asked that a condition also be added to the licence stating that the licence would only be valid once the proof of sale was shown to the satisfaction of the licensing authority. 

The police stated that he agreed with the trading standards officer and reported that the licensee had not been thinking of his staff with his previous actions.

The licensee’s representative stated that the licensee would be willing to comply with the proposed condition and following a three month suspension, the designated premises supervisor would be managing the premises and this would not be the current licensee.

RESOLVED

That the premises licence in respect of B and D Supermarket, 156 Seven Sisters Road, N7 7PL be revoked.

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 heard evidence from trading standards that the premises initially came to their attention in September 2014 when a large amount of illicit alcohol was seized from the premises. Following this, the licensee was given an opportunity to improve his management of the business and was given advice and training.  The licensee sought and was granted a variation of the licence to add further conditions and reduce the hours during which the sale of alcohol was permitted.  The Sub-Committee heard evidence that despite these measures, in November 2015, illicit tobacco and beer was found on the premises and numerous breaches of the licence conditions were noted. The Sub-Committee noted that the licensee admitted buying goods from a man in a van, the licensee was unable to produce paperwork for the beer, an employee stated that he had not received proper training and appropriate notices were not displayed as required.

The Sub-Committee noted that the licensee did not dispute the facts as described by trading standards and accepted that the tobacco should not have been stored where it was. The Sub-Committee heard evidence that in order to protect his staff he had found a buyer for the business and that the purchase should proceed in the next two months.  The Sub-Committee noted the licensee’s submission that the licence could be suspended for three months and that the designated premises supervisor could be replaced. The Sub-Committee asked the licensee’s representative about the proposed purchaser and the representative was unable to provide any information.

The Sub-Committee noted the police support for the trading standards review.

The Sub-Committee was concerned that the licensee and his staff had taken no steps to ensure that the licensing objectives were promoted following the seizure of illicit goods in 2014.  The licensing authority provided advice and training and yet there was a further seizure of illicit goods.   The Sub-Committee noted that further conditions were added to the licence following the 2014 seizure but these had not been sufficient to promote the licensing objectives and improve management at the premises. The Sub-Committee was of the view that the licensee had failed to demonstrate his ability to properly manage the premises and promote the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the addition of further conditions or a cut in hours would promote the licensing objectives.  Both of these measures had been tried before and failed.  The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the removal of the designated premises supervisor or a suspension of the licence pending the sale of the business would promote the licensing objectives.  No evidence was submitted as to the suitability of the purchaser; nothing was said of the purchaser’s experience in the field of licensing or management of off licence premises.

In the circumstances the Sub-Committee formed the view that a revocation of the licence was appropriate and proportionate to the promotion of the licensing objectives.

The Sub-Committee took into account Licensing policies 9 and 10 regarding standards of management and policy 30 in relation to reviews.  The Sub-Committee also took into account the Home Office guidance particularly paragraphs 11.18 to 11.23, 11.27 and 11.28.