Agenda item

The licensing officer presented their report.  Members had no 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 officer from the Metropolitan Police Service addressed the sub-committee.  They advised that they would be calling the trading standards officer (the applicant for the review for item 7 on the agenda) and two other police officers as witnesses.  Members had questions for the police officer and their witnesses.

 

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

 

The meeting adjourned at 12.33pm for the sub-committee to consider its decision.

 

The meeting reconvened at 1.50pm and the chair advised everyone present of the decision.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That having considered the objection notice submitted by the Metropolitan Police Service relating to the application submitted by The Peckham Food Point Ltd to transfer a premises licence under the Licensing Act 2003, in respect of the premises known Peckham Food & Wine, 176 Peckham High Street, London SE15 5EG, the licensing sub-committee has granted the transfer application.

 

Reasons

 

This was an application made by The Peckham Food Point Ltd for the transfer of the premises licence in respect of Peckham Food & Wine, 176 Peckham High Street, London SE15 5EG. 

 

The application was made prior to a review of the premises licence of the Peckham Food & Wine premises, made by Peckham Food Point Ltd.  Reference to the review application is pertinent to this transfer application and this decision should be read alongside to the decision of the review application and vice versa.

 

The representative for the applicant advised that the (current) licence holder, Mr Muhammed Baloch was in Pakistan tending to family matters. Due to the issues that had arisen, which resulted in the trading standards review application, he accepted that he was unable to run the business and remained in Pakistan. Mr Baloch had, therefore, approached the applicant, Mr Asif Ali offering to sell the business to him, which he accepted.  Mr Ali formed the company Peckham Food Point Ltd, which he is the sole director of.  The company is VAT registered, has its own business accounts and a valuation of stock has been carried out.

 

Only in exceptional circumstances could the police object to the transfer of the licence.  It was asserted that there were no exceptional circumstances in this case.  The evidence that the police had submitted to support its objection, was largely hearsay.

 

Both the police and trading standards had failed to provide information that resulted in Mr Ali being banned from the premises on 17 May 2022, however, this condition had been removed following variation application on 21 April 2023 (licensing sub-committee report, paragraph 27). 

 

In any event, any caution or warning would be considered “spent” under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and The Exceptions Order 1975.  Mr Ali was therefore of good character with no cautions or warnings against him.

The licensing sub-committee heard from the police, who were of the view that there were exceptional grounds to transfer of the premises licence. The transfer application had been received after trading standards had submitted a Section 51 review due to concerns as to the operation of the premises and illegal items being stored and sold by the premises to members of the public. Numerous breaches of the licence had been witnessed, and staff had been employed without carrying out the correct right to work checks being carried out.

 

All the matters of concern had taken place whilst Mr Ali had been employed as the manager at the premises. He had been in charge of the day-to-day operations of the premises since 2023.  Therefore, the police argued that Mr Ali had to accept a degree of responsibility for the premises, despite not being the designated premises supervisor.

 

During the period of the review application covered (1 March 2025 to 21 May 2025), Mr Ali was working the day shifts but was now working night shifts until the other employees had obtained their personal licences, in compliance with condition 101 of the premises licence. 

 

It was the police’s contention that the transfer application did not provide the premises with any new management, and the police had no confidence in the director for the applicant to be the holder of the premises licence based on his poor management history.

 

The police also referred to paragraphs 94 and 95 of the Southwark statement of licensing policy (SoLP) which provided documented proof of transfer of the business/lawful occupancy of the premises (such as a lease), to the new proposed licence holder to support the contention that the business was under new management control.  No such documentation had been provided.  The police were of the view that the business was not under new management control particularly given the applicant’s director was still part of the management team. The transfer application circumvented the review process.

 

The representative for the applicant responded to the paragraphs 94 and 95 point and advised that the lease to the premises was in the process of being assigned to the applicant and in the meantime, the applicant was paying all the rent.

 

 

The police had brought several witnesses that supported their objection. The witnesses were the same as the officer had brought for the review application, being the trading standards officer and other police officers, who had attended the premises on various occasions.  The sub-committee questioned the witnesses concerning the various licence breaches and inspections but was dissatisfied that Mr Ali had been present at the time of most of the breaches and nor had the majority of the warning letters been addressed to him:

 

i.  6 March 2025: Notice of Powers and Rights to Occupier.  Notice was addressed to the previous holder, Muhammed Baloch.

 

ii.  6 March 2025: Age Restricted Products Business Report Form - addressed to the previous licence holder.

 

iii.  16 March 2025: Notice of Seizure under Tobacco and related Products Regulations 2016 - addressed to the previous licence holder.

 

iv.  20 March 2025: Warning letter concerning matters arising on 6 March 2025 addressed to the previous licence holder.

 

v.  15 April 2025 - Age Restricted Products Business Report Form (Exhibit CAJ/PFW/01), this was addressed to the previous licence holder.

 

vi.  29 April 2025: Section 9 Witness Statement of Charlie Jeromm.

 

vii.  5 September 2025: Warning letter concerning matters from 30 August 2025 addressed to the previous designated premises supervisor, Mr Naseem Baluch.

 

viii.  29 September 2025: Warning letter addressed to the previous licence holder.

 

The licensing sub-committee found only two of the documents produced were specifically relevant to Mr Ali:

 

i.  30 August 2025: Book 963 Form: Notification of Licensing Act 2002 Offences. Identifies three licence condition breaches namely conditions, 342 (no signage), 4AI (refusals log- recordings inputted to different person who received the sale) and 349 (no training records relating to dispersal).  This appeared to be signed by Asif Ali.

 

ii.  5 September 2025: Warning letter concerning matters from 30 August 2025 addressed to Asif Ali.

 

Of note, condition 342 relates to Challenge 25, but had been specified on the Book 963 form as “signage”.  Because of the inconsistency, the sub-committee were dissatisfied with the evidence produced for the breach of this condition.

 

The licensing sub-committee felt it disproportionate to refuse the licence transfer on two breaches, which could be satisfactorily addressed with additional training.

 

Asif Ali had been on the premises but was ultimately responsible for any breaches. Identifying whom Notices and warning letters were served on demonstrated to the sub-committee that Mr Ali had neither been on the premises on each occasion when breaches were witnessed, nor had Notices all been served on him. After establishing this, the sub-committee questioned the role that Mr Ali did have. It was explained by the applicant’s representative that Mr Ali was the manager of the premises and was in charge of the day-to day running of the shop.

 

The licensing sub-committee were referred to paragraph 10.27 of the Home Office Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 (February 2025), that provides:

 

“The main purpose of the ‘designated premises supervisor’ as defined in the 2003 Act is to ensure that there is always one specified individual among these personal licence

holders who can be readily identified for the premises where a premises licence is in force. That person will normally have been given day to day responsibility for running the premises by the premises licence holder”.

 

Given that Mr Ali was not the designated premises supervisor, he could not be held “ultimately responsible” for the premises shortcomings. 

Concerning the failure to produce the documents as per paragraphs 94 and 95 SoLP, the sub-committee were advised that these were in the hands of the Applicant’s conveyancing solicitors and awaiting approval from the council’s property services. The position was accepted with no evidence to the contrary.

 

The licensing sub-committee did accept that the reason why the police objected to the transfer, however upon scrutiny, the evidence did not come up to proof.  In the circumstances, the sub-committee were of the view that there were no exceptional circumstancesthat the business (applicant) or individual (Mr Ali) are linked or involved in crime or disorder and undermine the licensing objectives.

 

In reaching its decision, the licensing sub-committee had regard to all the relevant considerations, its equality duties and four licensing objectives and considered that this decision was appropriate and proportionate

 

Appeal rights

 

The applicant may appeal against any decision:

 

a)  To refuse the application to transfer the premises licence

b)  To refuse the application to specify a person as premises supervisor.

 

Any person who submitted a relevant objection in relation to the application who desire to contend that:

 

a)  That the application to transfer the premises licence ought not to be been granted or

b)  That the application specify a person as premises supervisor ought not to be been granted

 

May appeal against the decision.

 

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.