Agenda item

The licensing officer presented their report.  Members had no questions for the licensing officer.

 

The Metropolitan Police Service representative, the applicant for the review, addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the police.

 

The trading standards officer addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the trading standards officer.

 

The licensing responsible authority officer addressed the sub-committee.  Members had no questions for the licensing responsible authority officer.

 

The premises licence holder addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the premises licence holder.

 

All parties were given up to five minutes for summing up.

 

The meeting adjourned at 1.10pm for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

 

The meeting reconvened at 1.40pm and the chair advised all parties of the decision.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the council’s licensing sub-committee, having considered an application made under Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003 by Metropolitan Police Service for the review of the premises licence issued in respect of Foodlink, 98-100 Wyndham Road, London SE5 0BU having had regard to all relevant representations has decided to revoke the premise licence.

 

Reasons

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from the representative for the Metropolitan Police Service Police, the applicant to the review who advised that on 3 July 2020, police executed two search warrant at Foodlink, 98-100 Wyndham road and 108 Wyndham road, London SE5. The licence holder and designated premises supervisor, Sohail Khan, was in the premises behind the counter with two other people employed at the premises which included the DPS who was asked to come out from behind the serving counter so that he and the serving counter area could searched. Mr Khan immediately became aggressive and obstructive, refusing to come out to be searched shouting at officers “don’t touch me” and trying to pull away from them to make a phone call on his mobile phone having already been told he was not allowed to make any calls.  When he was asked his name he replied, “You know what, I ain’t going to answer no questions”.

 

Police searching the private basement storage area found twelve wraps of what is believed to a cocaine and heroin mix, which was subsequently tested and found to contain cocaine and opiates. Under the counter, the searching officer found a hammer and a large bread knife, which appeared to be kept there to use as weapons.

 

The full premises licence and summary were not made available and breaches were found in relation licence conditions: 342 (staff training concerning the supply of intoxicating liquor), 843 (staff training concerning alcohol and cigarettes not to be purchased from customers and or a door to door sales person), 340 (CCTV be installed both inside and out and a recording kept for 31 days).

 

On 9 July 2020, officers from licensing and night time economy team, in the company of Southwark’s trading standards team, carried out another licensing inspection.  Again, officers found a number of breaches of the licence relating to licence conditions: 101 (alcohol supplied under the premises licence to be made or authorised by a personal licence holder), 336 (personal licence holder to be on the premises at all times intoxicating liquor supplied), 342 (recognised training for all staff supplying intoxicating liquor), 345 (refusals book), 341 (implementation of recognised proof of age scheme), 344 (under 21s ID), 488 (age verification scheme), 847 (Challenge 25 policy), and 340 (CCTV). 

 

Police attended the premises again on 15 July 2020 to collect the CCTV previously requested but were advised the CCTV was not working for the period requested, being a further breach of the licence.

Of the four licensing inspections at the premises previously, weapons have been found three times under the counter and on two occasions no personal licence holder was present. On all visits a number of breaches of the licence have been found.

 

The licensing sub-committee was also advised that in October 2014 the premises licence was subject to a Section 53A expedited review, under the previous management, after a serious assault took place whilst the premises where operating in breach of the licence. Sohail Khan was the freehold owner of the premises at that time.

 

Mr Khan owns a number of properties, which have been subject to both council and police enforcement action, due to poor management, and breaches of the licences. His father (who also has links to the premises at) is the owner of another property on Wyndham Road, which had a warrant executed on the same day as Foodlink on 3 July 2020 and believed to being used as a brothel with links to human trafficking; but advertising as a massage parlour.  This police investigation is ongoing.

 

Sohail Khan was also convicted for breaching an enforcement notice for the concerning the unlawful conversion of 98-100 Wyndham Road from a public house to a shop and six flats without planning permission, at 98A Wyndham Road, contrary to Section 179(2) of the  Town and Country Planning Act 1990.  As a result of that conviction, he was also made the subject of a confiscation order for the sum the criminal benefit of £25,175.00 for the rent he continued to receive from the properties, in breach of the enforcement notice.  The confiscation order was made in the sum of £18,000 on 18 May 2019.

 

The licensing sub-committee then heard from the officer from trading standards who advised that he supported the police’s review of the premises licence having had eight years of dealings with both the premises and the premises licence holder, Sohail Khan and the premises licence holder’s father, Yaqoob Khan. 

 

The officer went on to explain that the current license was issued on 24 September 2019 with Sohail Khan as the premises license holder and the designated premises license Holder. It was Trading Standard’s belief that Yaqoob Khan was the real controlling mind behind the business.

 

The premises were previously a public house that closed down and became a shop. The land registry showed that Mr Sohail Khan was the current owner of the premises and has been since 2012. Sohail Khan’s father previously had control of the business before selling it to his son. His father was also has the long lease on the premises at Wyndham Road.  Prior to the premises licence being transferred to the Sohail Khan in 2019 the previous licence holder was convicted in 2016 under Regulation 19(1) Food Safety & Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013, concerning illicit alcohol (duty diverted vodka) without any traceable invoices. They were also found to have been in breach of their premises licence under Section 136 of the Licensing Act 2003 (not using the serving hatch at the time of the stabbing and fight in the premises in 2014) and under Section 146 of the Licensing Act 2003 (selling alcohol to a minor).

 

Following Sohail Khan taking over the premises licence to Foodlnk in 2019, the trading standards officer received a visit at the council offices by a known associate of Sohail Khan who alleged that he had been forcibly evicted from the premises by Sohail Khan and his father. The associate went on to allege that both Sohail Khan and his father were also running a brothel from the property at Wyndham Road.

 

During the officer’s visit to the premises on 9 July 2020, numerous breaches of the premises license were found, including no personal licence holder on the premises.  The person behind the counter, and in charge of the Foodlink at the time, said that he had worked at the premises for a month. When asked why there were entries in the refusals register dating beyond this start date at the premises, he laughed and said that Sohail Khan had made him write them in the book.

The licensing sub-committee then heard from the officer representing licensing as a responsible authority, who also supported the police’s review under the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety and the protection of children from harm licensing objectives and had regard to the Southwark’s statement of licensing policy 2019-21.

 

The officer referred to the police’s expedited review in 2014. The officer continued that following the outcomes of recent inspections by the police and trading standards application, there was no faith in the current licensee and designated premises supervisor. 

 

The premises licence holder and designated supervisor then very briefly spoke with the members of the sub-committee and advised that his father had told the employee who spoken to by trading standards on 9 July 2020, that he needed to complete the refusal’s book, not falsify it.  Concerning the drugs found, he claimed that he was not aware of the up to date position and that he had also changed the CCTV. He also advised that he was bereaving and not in the right state of mind to run the premises properly. However, he was unhappy to surrender the premises licence, saying that the business wouldn’t survive without one and if were revoked, it would break him.

 

The licensing sub-committee considered both the oral and written evidence before it very carefully and found that the evidence in support of the revocation of the licence compelling; the oral evidence of Mr Khan failed to give any convincing reason why the premises licence should not be revoked.

 

In responding to this review of the premises licence, the sub-committee recognised that it had five options it could consider for the promotion of the licensing objectives:

 

i.  Modify the conditions of the licence by altering, omitting or adding any condition.

ii.  Exclude a licensable activity from the scope of the licence

iii.  Remove the designated premises supervisor

iv.  Suspend the licence for a period not exceeding three months

v.  Revoke the licence.

 

As a result of the expedited review, additional extensive and detailed conditions were added to the premises licence.  Given the catalogue of licence breaches, since 2014, the sub-committee determined that it would be inappropriate and futile to add any further conditions.  Concerning the exclusion of a licensable activity, the premises licence to Foodlink consists only of the sale of alcohol, so its exclusion would also be inappropriate.  The premises previously had a one month’s suspension of its premises licence, which clearly had no effect on the way the premises has been managed (post 2014) so the sub-committee found that there would be no benefit in imposing even a three month suspension at this stage,  The premises licence holder, Mr Khan, is currently the designated licence holder and whilst a premises licence transfer and designated premises variation was submitted in advance of this review, this could not be granted as it was found that Mr Khan would remain the controlling mind to the business.  In all the circumstances, there was no other option to revoke this premises licence.

 

Appeal rights

 

This decision is open to appeal by either:

 

a)  The applicant for the review

b)  The premises licence holder

c)  Any other person who made relevant representations in relation to the application  

 

Such appeal must be commenced by notice of appeal given by the appellant to the justices’ clerk for the Magistrates’ Court for the area within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the appellant was notified by this licensing authority of the decision.

 

This decision does not have effect until either

 

a)  The end of the period for appealing against this decision; or

b)  In the event of any notice of appeal being given, until the appeal is disposed of.