Agenda item

The licensing officer presented their report.  Members had questions for the licensing officer.

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

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

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

The representative from the premises addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the representative from the premises.

All parties were given five minutes for summing up.

The licensing sub-committee went into closed session at 11.47am.

The licensing sub-committee resumed at 1.30pm and the chair read out the decision of the sub-committee.

RESOLVED:

That the council’s licensing sub-committee, having had regard to the application by other persons for a review of the premises granted under the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known as Costcutter, situated at 257-259 Southwark Park Road, London SE16 3PT and having had regard also to all other relevant representations has decided it necessary for the promotion of the licensing objectives to revoke the licence.

Reasons

This was a hearing of an application by trading standards for a review of the premises known as Costcutter situated at 257-259 Southwark Park Road, London SE16 3TP

This application was made under Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003.

The licensing sub-committee heard evidence from trading standards, the applicant for the review who made representations in relation to the prevention of crime and disorder and the protection of children from harm licensing objectives.  The officer advised that they had conducted a joint inspection of the premises with HMRC on 31 January 2014.  On inspection, 210 bottles were found to have failed to comply with the fiscal markings of duty paid.  All items were seized and 31 bottles of Glens Vodka were identified as being counterfeit. 

At the time of the inspection, Mr Sayed Safi claimed to be the manager of the shop but did not hold a personal licence. Trading standards confirmed that he had been the premises licence holder since June 2009 and at the time of inspection Mr Waheed Allahgul was the designated premises supervisor.  Mr Safi was unable to say where the alcohol had come from or produce any invoices. 

The officer advised that a number of breaches of the licence were found.  These included that no alcohol licence was displayed, no personal licence holder was on the premises while intoxicating liquor was being sold, there was no proof of age scheme available on site, no refusal book for the sale of alcohol or any recent training records were available.  Mr Safi was unable to answer the questions put to him by the trading standards officer and said that he had only been at the premises for three months, despite being a premises licence holder since 2009. Mr Safi appeared to be reliant on Mr Allahgul, who was called to attend the premises to provide documents and information to the officers. Upon inspecting the documents produced by Mr Allahgul it was found that the last entry for the refusal of sales book was 3 February 2012 and the last training record was 18 March 2011.

In the opinion of the trading standards officer, the inclusion of additional conditions on the licence would be of little value in achieving compliance with the licence.

The licensing sub-committee heard from the licensing officer representing the council as a responsible authority who advised the sub-committee that they supported the review by trading standards.  They advised that it appeared that the premises had a complete disregard to the licence conditions.

The licensing sub-committee heard from the Metropolitan Police Service who also supported the review.  They advised that the premises had scant regard for the licensing objectives in relation to the prevention of crime and have allegedly been involved in crimes regarding counterfeit goods or the non payment of duty.  In their opinion there was little by way of conditions the officer could offer which would satisfy the licensing objectives and as such they felt that the only route was to revoke the licence.

The licensing sub-committee heard evidence from the licensing agent representing the premises.  They advised that the current licence holder and designated premises supervisor had been in custody from 19 April 2013 to 28 October 2013.  They claimed that during this time the licence had been transferred back to Mr Sayed Safi, Mr Allahgul’s brother-in-law.  It was during this period that Mr Allahgul believed that the purchase of the counterfeit alcohol had taken place. 

The agent advised that on the day of the trading standards inspection a personal licence holder had been present but had suffered a head injury and had gone home with the intention of returning within an hour.  This evidence was countered by the trading standards officer who advised that this was the first time that he had heard of this as nobody had raised this as a reason for no personal licence holder being available at the time of inspection.  He also advised that he had been at the premises for around two hours and a personal licence holder had not returned during this period.  It was accepted that Mr Safi should have been advised not to sell any alcohol during this period when the personal licence holder was off the premises.  They advised that Mr Safi had been unable to find the documents requested by the officers because the shop window had been broken, leading to water ingress and damage to the documents. 

The licensing agent offered to circulate a large number of various documents to the sub-committee.  However, the sub-committee had not been notified of this before or at the beginning of the meeting and none of the other parties had been given sight of these documents.  Having had regard to Regulation 18 of the Licensing Act 20013 (Hearings) Regulations 2005 the sub-committee resolved not to admit this late evidence.

Mr Allahgul advised the sub-committee that he had asked Mr Sayed Safi to run the premises in his absence and had relied on him to run the business in accordance with the licence.  He informed the sub-committee that he had been completely unaware of the 210 bottles of alcohol at the premises, subsequently confiscated by HMRC and was shocked to hear of this.  He advised that he had taken an active role of the running of the premises from April 2014 and had applied to transfer the premises licence back to his own name from 24 March 2014.

On hearing all the evidence put before it, the sub-committee felt that there were several inconsistencies in the evidence presented by the premises licence holder.  The sub-committee  did not have faith in the current management to implement existing conditions on the licence, let alone adhere to any additional conditions, particularly in light of the previous warnings on February 2010 and 29 August 2012.  The premises has been wilfully disregarding the licensing conditions and licensing objectives and as such the licensing sub-committee had no alternative but to revoke the licence.

In reaching this decision the sub committee had regard to all the relevant considerations and the four licensing objectives.

The licensing sub-committee considered that its decision was appropriate and proportionate in order to address the licensing objectives.

Appeal rights

This decision is open to appeal by:

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.