Agenda item

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

The applicant and their legal representative addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the applicant and their legal representative.

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

The police officer from the Metropolitan Police Service had questions for the applicant, which the chair allowed.

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

The meeting adjourned at 1.15pm for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

The meeting reconvened at 1.45pm and the chair advised both parties of the decision.

RESOLVED:

That the application made byAugustine Asante for a special treatment licence to be granted under Section 10 (1) of the London Local Authorities Act 1991 in respect of the premises known as Le Nails, 217 Camberwell Road, London SE5 0HG  be refused.

Reasons

The licensing sub-committee heard from the licensing officer who stated that the application concerned a new special treatment licence.  He said there had been an objection raised by the Metropolitan Police Service. 

The licensing officer went on to say that the applicant had attended a previous licensing sub-committee meeting for a special treatment licence in respect of another business called Lucky Nails.  The Lucky Nails application was withdrawn before a determination was made.  The licensing officer was of the view that the applicant was aware of the enforcement action being carried out at 217 Camberwell Road (“the premises”) during 2019 as he worked next door and he was written to by the licensing unit in his capacity as leaseholder of the premises and that he had attended the premises from next door when enforcement action was being carried out.

The legal representative for the applicant advised that the applicant had nothing to do with the organisation who carried on their business at the premises during 2019.  The applicant had allowed his special treatment licence to lapse prior to the organisation operating out of the premises.  He confirmed that the applicant was the leaseholder of the premises during 2019 and that the applicant had rented the premises to the organisation that continued to offer special treatments without a licence. 

It was submitted by the applicant’s legal representative that that the applicant had no knowledge of the activities being carried out by the organisation, that a year had passed since any wrongdoing at the premises and; that persons from the organisation who had operated without a licence, would not be involved in the business Le Nails. The legal representative went on to submit that it could be a condition of the licence that no-one who was involved in the organisation operating from the premises without a licence should form part of operational structure of Le Nails.

The applicant confirmed that he did not know of any wrongdoing by the organisation until the last police raid.  The applicant confirmed that he worked next door to the premises, in the barber shop, as a barber.  He also confirmed that he had tried to assist an operator at Lucky Nails in obtaining a special treatment licence and confirmed that the application was subsequently abandoned when he was told he could not speak on her behalf.  The applicant stated that he wanted to run the business legitimately and so decided to apply for a licence in his own right. 

The applicant confirmed that he has now put steps in place to obtain identification documents of all persons who would work for him; and those documents would be retained for inspection.

The applicant stated that he was aware that an operative from Lucky Nails had been arrested during one of the raids on the premises by the police (in 2019) and that no further action was taken against the operative subsequently.  He went on to say that he assisted that operative from Lucky Nails in trying to obtain a licence as explained.

The licensing sub-committee then heard from the Metropolitan Police Service (“the police”) who were objecting to the grant of a licence under section 8 (c) and (e) of the London Local Authorities Act 1991 which provides:

c)  The persons concerned or intended to be concerned in the conduct or management of the premises used for special treatment could be reasonably regarded as not being fit and proper persons to hold such a licence.

e)   The premises have been or are being improperly conducted.

The police constable making representations on behalf of the police stated, the police had sent the premises a warning letter on 17 June 2019 prior to officers attending the premises.  The letter told the business that they should not be trading without a licence and that they should stop trading until a licence was obtained. No application was received.

On 10 July 2019, officers from the police night time economy Team (“NTET”) and the council’s licensing team attended the premises as it was trading as a nail bar carrying out special treatments. Five people working at the venue were arrested for immigration offences. All of those who were arrested were of Vietnamese origin and none had authority to work and  had entered the country illegally.

On 9 October 2019, officers from the NTET, social services and immigration officers attended as the premises as it was trading as a nail bar carrying out special treatments. Two people were arrested for immigration offences and a number of other workers had immigration conditions imposed upon them forbidding them from working.

On 5 December 2019, officers attended the premises. Three members of staff believed to be management were arrested and three other members of staff were detained regarding immigration offences.

The police constable went on to say that there had been 17 arrests for immigration offences and of those arrests, 16 were still under investigation with one being no further action.  He stated that the applicant was the lease-holder at the relevant time and; that it was the applicant who had allowed his licence lapse.  He further added that as the applicant worked next door, he contended that the applicant could see, and would have been aware special treatments were taking place on the premises in the absence of a licence.

In forming its decision the licensing sub-committee had regard to all the relevant legislation and case-law.

Having heard all of the evidence, the licensing sub-committee had no confidence that placing conditions on the special treatment licence would be workable or enforceable.  The licensing sub-committee formed the view that it would be impossible to say who was working at the premises (and in what capacity) during 2019, as there were no comparable lists or other records kept of persons who worked at the premises during that time.

The licensing sub-committee formed the view that the applicant was not a fit and proper persons to hold a special treatment licence given his conduct during 2019.  The applicant would have been aware that a licence was required for the premises as he was a previous licence holder; despite this, he allowed his licence to lapse and then he proceeded to rent out the premises as a nail salon, knowing no licence was in place or failing to make proper checks that the required licence had been obtained. 

The licensing sub-committee was not convinced that the applicant was unaware of what was happening at the premises given the fact that the applicant worked next door. In addition, the licensing officer had stated that the applicant attended the premises whilst enforcement action was being carried out and that the applicant was written to by the licensing unit during the course of 2019, as he was the leaseholder of the premises.

The licensing sub-committee heard that there was no dispute amongst attendees that the premises had been improperly conducted during 2019.

The licensing sub-committee were of the view that that there was a real risk of repetition as the applicant’s conduct during 2019, showed very little regard for the licensing regime under the London Local Authorities Act 1991 which had been put in place to protect members of the public.

In reaching this decision, the licensing sub-committee had regard to all the relevant considerations and are of the view that this decision was appropriate and proportionate in all of the circumstances.

Appeal rights

The following parties may appeal a decision of the sub-committee:

a)  An applicant for the grant, renewal or transfer of a licence whose application is refused.

b)  An applicant for the grant, renewal or transfer of a licence who is aggrieved by any term, condition or restriction on or subject to which the licence is granted, renewed or transferred.

Any appeal must be made to the Magistrates’ court for the area in which the premises are situated. 

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