Agenda item

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

There was a brief discussion regarding admitting late evidence from trading standards. The representative for the premises advised that they would not want this to be considered. 

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

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

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

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

The meeting adjourned at 2.10pm for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

The meeting reconvened at 3.12pm and the chair advised attendees 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 the council’s trading standards service, for the review of the premises licence issued in respect of the premises known as City Wines (aka Dennis Wines), 141 Jamaica Road, London SE16 4SH, and having had regard to all other relevant representations, has decided that it is appropriate, necessary and proportionate in order to promote the licensing objectives to revoke the licence.

Reasons

The sub-committee heard from the council’s trading standards service, the applicant for the review, that on 20August 2024 they applied to the licensing authority for a review of the premises licence in respect of the premises known as City Wines (aka Dennis Wines), 141 Jamaica Road, London SE16 4SH.

Within the application, trading standards made reference to material to be circulated at a future date. This was overlooked due to a member of staff leaving and trading standards sought permission to submit the material at the start of the hearing.

Whilst the representative for the licensing authority agreed with the introduction of the material, the representative for the premises raised concerns that they had not had time to consider the material, nor take instructions upon it and objected to its inclusion as a whole. The material was therefore not taken into consideration in accordance with Regulation 18 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005.

The application primarily related to the offence of selling alcohol to a minor, amongst other offences, and concerned the prevention of crime and disorder and the protection of children from harm licensing objectives.

On Saturday 15 June 2024, officers within Southwark Council’s trading standards team were undertaking an underage sales test purchase exercise with a 15 year old male volunteer. The representative for trading standards explained that the owner of the business, and the premises licence holder, sold a 500ml bottle of Fullers Bengal Lancer 5.4% ABV to the underage volunteer for £2.50. No questions were asked of the volunteer prior to the sale.

An inspection was consequently conducted at the premises and a number of offences were found to have been committed, including the keeping of smuggled goods contrary to s.144 Licensing Act 2003 and offences contrary to the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 regarding electronic cigarettes (vapes) with excess tank capacity. 10 illegal vapes with excess tank capacity were found to be present on the premises, there were also 21 bottles of Alomo Bitters which appeared to have been smuggled without payment of duty.

Trading standards noted that the tobacco grantry was open, with tobacco products clearly and openly on display to the public. There were no A3 statutory notices stating that tobacco products couldn’t be sold to under 18 year olds and two opened packets of cigarettes were found on the till, often a sign that single cigarettes were being sold.

The business owner was invited for an interview under caution whereupon he fully admitted selling alcohol to a minor contrary to s.146 Licensing Act 2003. He explained that the volunteer had a hood up and he should have asked him to lower it. He further stated that the vapes and alcohol in question were brought to the shop by companies who deliver such items and he did not have any invoices for them.

Trading standards informed the sub-committee that on 15February 2024, the business owner sold a vape to a minor as part of a previous test purchase operation. This was conducted after a number of complaints were made by the public notifying trading standards that vapes were being sold by the premises to minors from the local estate. The business owner was interviewed under caution, admitted the offence along with offences relating to possession of illegal vapes and a quantity of illicit tobacco, and signed a simple caution.

A further test purchase was attempted on 6 June 2024, with a different 15 year old volunteer. The volunteer was told by the person behind the counter that he didn’t know him and that he should try somewhere else. Shortly after this, a further complaint was made about vapes being sold by the premises to those in school uniform, which should make it obvious that they were underage. No receipts were provided for the vapes and bitters seized on 15^th June 2024.

The representative for trading standards corrected an error within their application; a refusals book was found at the premises and had been signed by one of the officers present at the inspection on 15h June 2024. A copy of this was provided with the agreement of all parties.

Trading standards recommended that the licence be revoked; the premises had shown a consistent pattern of behaviour including multiple examples of underage sales, despite enforcement action taken by trading standards. The intervention had not made a difference, there was a clear disregard of licensing objectives and they had no confidence that there would be a change in conduct in the future.

The sub-committee then heard from a representative of the licensing authority who fully supported the review and the suggestion to revoke the premises licence. They submitted that the business owner had repeatedly shown that he would sell high risk products to minors, irrespective of warnings and cautions. The only suitable action in respect of this premises was to revoke the licence.

Lastly, the sub-committee heard from the representative for the premises who accepted that there had been failings in the past. He was a young man who had started a small family business in taking over the premises; he was married, had a child and was keen to make the business work. In respect of the sale of alcohol to underage persons on 15^th June 2024, it had been raining outside and the customer came in with their hood up. The premises licence holder didn’t want to ask them to remove it because of the rain. He was also having family problems and was on his phone so he was distracted. This account was given by way of explanation and it was emphasised that it was not a defence.

In respect of the illegal vapes, the business owner stocked 6 different brands and 5/6 varieties of each, out of those only 10 were illegal, the remainder were fully compliant. After the last inspection, the business owner went online, printed out the rules and guidance and studied them thoroughly to ensure he was fully aware of the rules. The alcohol found in the store room, the Alomo Bitters, were not for sale. A supplier gave them to the licence holder who kept them in the store room, he did not have an invoice as he had not yet paid for them. 

At the interview on 15February 2024, the buiness owner took all responsibility for his failures. He implemented a new system and since then contended that the system worked as the vape was not sold at the test purchase on 6^th June 2024, albeit it was a colleague who conducted this interaction, not the business owner.

It was also explained that he intended to refit the shop, changing the shutter in front of the tobacco so that it was easier to close after each use. He wasn’t able to do this earlier due to sourcing the funding for it.

The sub-committee considered very carefully whether to revoke the premises licence as requested by trading standards and licensing. 

The sub-committee were concerned that the business owner’s explanations did not stand up to scrutiny; he was unable to detail the new system he claimed to have put in place, other than to say that the till provided a reminder to check the customers age. He found it difficult to describe the local school uniform, other than to explain that they wore a grey blazer. He was also unable to name the school, despite saying that he had a very good relationship with the teachers.

It appeared that the business owner either found it difficult to challenge customers as to their age, or simply had no regard for the laws on sales to minors. He explained that two teachers from the local school stood outside of the shop after school hours in order to keep an eye on the students, although this only happened on weekdays. He described an incident where a colleague was hit in the face after refusing a sale and a knife was found beneath the cash register at the last inspection, although it was noted that the licence holder said this was to cut fruit for customers. 

When asked about who the suppliers were for his vapes and alcohol, the licence holder was unable to name any other than to say they are in New Cross. He also struggled to detail what proportion of his sales were due to alcohol.

Whilst the sale of electronic cigarettes is not under the purview of licensing, the sub-committee considered that the previous offences and complaints regarding this premises showed a pattern of behaviour and a propensity to disregard the law and sell illegal products to minors. They considered the business owner to be out his depth and to have very little control or understanding of his own business.

The sub-committee considered that there were no conditions that could be imposed to ensure the licencing objectives were achieved. Nor would further training, removal of the designated premises supervisor or a period of suspension assist as the breaches all concerned the business owner.

The decision was therefore made that the only appropriate, necessary and proportionate action to take was to revoke the licence, particularly in order to protect young people from harm. In reaching this decision the sub-committee had regard to all the relevant considerations and the four licensing objectives.

Appeal rights