Agenda item

London Local Authorities Act 1991: 157 Camberwell Road, London SE5 0HQ

Minutes:

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

 

The applicant and their son, who was acting as a translator for the applicant, addressed the sub-committee.  Members had questions for the applicant.

 

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

 

Both parties were given five minutes for summing up.

 

The meeting adjourned at 11.04am for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

 

The meeting reconvened at 11.35am and the chair advised all parties of the decision.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application made by Xue Mei Phung, for the renewal of their special treatment licence under Part II of the London Local Authorities Act 1991, in respect of the premises known as 888 Nails, 157 Camberwell Road, London SE5 0HQ be refused.

 

Reasons

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from the licensing officer who stated that the application concerned a renewal of a special treatment licence.  The licensing officer stated that the applicant first applied for a licence in 2015 and that application was subsequently granted. 

 

The licensing officer informed the licensing sub-committee that there had been an objection by the Metropolitan Police Service concerning illegal immigrants found working at the premises.

 

The licensing officer confirmed that he had visited the premises previously and, remembered there being four, maybe five tables where treatments could be obtained.

 

The licensing officer confirmed that the issue with illegal immigrant workers took place during the operational period of their last licence in 2019 and; that due to Covid-19, the council extended all special treatment licences by six months.  He confirmed that ordinarily, special treatment licences are renewed yearly. 

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from Mr Michael Phung, the applicant’s son.  He spoke on her behalf and acted as his mother’s translator.  He confirmed that the premises had held a continuous licence from Southwark Council since January 2016 and, that they had never traded under any other name. 

 

Mr Phung believed the police alleged the premises had allowed its licence to lapse.  He denied this.  He stated that after the police raided their premises on 17 December 2019, the applicant provided a declaration to the Home Office regarding the workers who were at the premises that day.  Mr Phung stated that the authorities took no further action against the applicant.  Mr Phung said that they applied for a special treatment licence after the police raid and that licence application was granted.  He said his mother had never committed any crime and, he believed the allegations against her are false.

 

The licensing officer explained to the licensing sub-committee that the premises licence was due to expire on 31 July 2020, but due to the pandemic, the council automatically extended the licence until 31 January 2021 therefore, the application was not granted as put forward by Mr Phung.

 

Mr. Phung confirmed that he was aware that when an operative joined the business, they (the applicant), would have to apply to the council to place that new operative on the licence.  He confirmed that all of the operatives he employed were trained in the UK. 

 

He confirmed that all of his operatives worked under contract, were salaried and paid tax and national insurance contributions.  He explained that the business and their accountant negotiated a reasonable fee with the operative, which included the London living wage or a salary every month.  He then stated that the workers were paid according to what the business could afford.

 

Mr Phung confirmed that 888 nails has three operatives who are currently working in the shop.  It transpired that of these three persons, one of the persons had not been registered with the council at all and, another was not mentioned on the current licence application. The licensing officer explained that an application to vary their special treatment licence adding the operative who had never been registered with the council was due to be heard at a later date.

 

Mr Phung stated that they recruited staff through word of mouth and the applicant would ensure that recruits would have the right qualifications, the right to work legally in the UK and that they are competent. He said that spot checks with the colleges were not carried out; but going forward, said he would consider doing this.

 

Mr Phung confirmed that all the members of staff had a contract of employment, paid tax and national insurance.  He confirmed that they were all paid the minimum wage or a salary and not what the company could afford as stated earlier.

 

Mr Phung said they had four tables at the premises and four employees including the applicant who worked part time. It was pointed out that the applicant was not listed as an operative on the application.  Mr. Phung replied stating that his mother worked as a manager and does not do nails.  He went on to deny that there were illegal workers at the premises or that any of his employees rented tables.  He went on to claim that on the day of the raid, the arrested persons in the shop were just there and not behind the tables working as alleged by the police.

 

Mr Phung mentioned that his mum was listed as an operative on a previous licence.  Mr Phung was asked where his mother went to college; Mrs Phung said she could not recall the name of the college she had attended due to the passage of time.

 

Mr Phung confirmed third parties maintained the business premises and that supplies were ordered locally.  He went on to say his mother leased the premises and reiterated that employees were not renting tables from her.

 

Mr Phung said that staff could not work due to the pandemic so were furloughed. He confirmed that the business had a health and safety certificate on the wall of the shop.

 

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 informed the licensing sub-committee that officers from the night-time economy team, the council’s licensing team, trading standards and immigration officers attended the premises on 17 December 2019.  Upon entering the premises, officers were able to confirm that six persons were working at the premises, all those persons found working at the premises were illegal immigrants of which, two were juveniles.  All of the illegal immigrants were giving treatments and were wearing face masks. 

 

It was noted that the raid took place prior to the pandemic in the UK, so there was no requirement for ordinary members of the public to wear masks at that time. The juveniles were subsequently placed in the care of social services.

 

The licensing sub-committee heard from an officer acting as a witness for the police who was present at the raid.  He said that the operation was part of a number of visits within Southwark.  The officer stated that this particular day unusual, as officers from Gang Masters were also present.  All persons arrested during the raid were subsequently interviewed by the Gang Masters. He recalled that there were customers in the shop at the time and that some of the arrested operatives were giving special treatments to those customers.  He also noted that the operatives were predominately male, which he found to be unusual. The officer went on to confirm that none on the operatives arrested were named on the licence contained within the premises.

 

The officer rejected the proposition that background checks were carried by the applicant as alleged by Mr Phung.  He stated that if this were the case, there would not have been so many illegal workers in the premises at the time of the raid.

 

The officer did not recall the applicant being present at the time of the raid but said he could not be sure.  He believes there were six tables in the shop, of which, two further tables were down some stairs further along the ground floor.

 

Mr Phung did not accept that there was any evidence to suggest that his mother had employed illegal immigrants or that she had broken the law as no further action was taken against her.

 

In closing, Mr Phung stated that his mother had become a business owner who tried to adhere to the law.  He said the business was his mother’s only source of income and that she had made the premises Covid-19 proof.  He also stated that they were only seeing clients by appointment at this time.  He said that if the licence were renewed, there would be no regulatory concerns and they would be happy to be subjected to further checks.

 

When asked by the Chair, Mr Phung stated that one member of staff was working at the premises prior to lockdown and that member of staff had been furloughed. He denied having staff working at the business who were not on the licence.  Mr Phung stated that the furloughed staff he referred to earlier were cleaners and did not give special treatments to members of the public.

 

A member of the licensing sub-committee informed Mr Phung that the business is not allowed to be open to see clients by appointments during lockdown.  Mr Phung responded by saying they were not seeing clients at this time and that they only saw clients by appointments prior to lockdown.

 

Having heard all of the evidence, the licensing sub-committee preferred the evidence of the police, which they found to be credible, reliable and consistent.

 

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 the applicant was not a fit and proper person to hold a special treatment licence.  The licensing sub-committee believed the applicant had allowed illegal workers including juveniles, to work in the premises and in doing so, had allowed the premises to be improperly conducted.

 

The licensing sub-committee formed the view that the applicant had willfully failed to register their operatives as required to do so under the licensing regime and allowed persons unknown to the council to provide special treatments to members of the public.

 

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

 

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

 

Appeal rights

 

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

 

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

 

·  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.

 

 

Supporting documents: