Agenda item

REVIEW OF THE PREMISES LICENCE AT BEST N EXPRESS, 89 QUEENSWAY, BR5 1DQ

Minutes:

 

Councillors: Nicholas Bennett J.P (Chairman), Melanie Stevens, Pauline Tunnicliffe

 

Licence Holder’s Legal Representative:    Ms Praisooty

 

Licence Holder:    Mr. Kanapathy Ratnasingham 

   (Who is also the DPS)   

Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS):  Mr. Kanapathy Ratnasingham

(Who is also the licence holder) 

 

Council’s Licensing Team Leader:   Mr. Steve Phillips 

 

Council’s Lead Trading Standards Practitioner: Ms. Ruth Hancock 

 

Council’s Lawyer:   Mrs. Raheli Paris

 

APPLICATION FOR A REVIEW OF THE LICENCE AT BEST N EXPRESS, 89 QUEENSWAY BR5 1DQ 

 

I  Decision:

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee agreed that the current licence’s condition would apply as well as the additional conditions  recommended by the Council’s Trading Standards to be added to the Licence as stated in the recommendations listed on page 15 of 112 (Conditions Numbers 1- 3) and that condition Number 4 should come into force after 31st October 2018.  Condition number 5 did not apply.

 

II  The Review:

 

The application to review the premises licence of BEST N EXPRESS, 89 QUEENSWAY BR5 1DQ, was brought by Ms. Ruth Hancock on behalf of London Borough Bromley, Trading Standards. At the hearing Ms. Hancock (the Council’s Lead Trading Standards Practitioner) summarised the background to the application. Ms. Hancock explained that photographs of the volunteers who had taken part in the test purchase exercises would be circulated, and that the photographs were taken on the day that the test purchase took place.

 

The date on the photograph had defaulted in error to a date in 2014. Ms. Hancock explained that the error occurred due to a technical fault in the Council’s photograph camera.  Ms. Hancock further explained that the Council had since fixed the camera and subsequent photographs would have the correct date of any pictures taken.

 

The reason for the review was as a result of an underage sale of Alcohol and Tobacco exercise undertaken by the Council’s Trading Standards. On the 10th February 2018, a member of staff at the premises sold alcohol to a volunteer under the age of 18 without asking for  relevant identification to prove whether or not the volunteer was 18 years old. It was that sale which had instigated the review.

 

The grounds for the review were related to the licensing objective which focused on the protection of children from harm.

 

III  Findings of fact  

 

BEST N EXPRESS (trades as Great Grapes), 89 QUEENSWAY BR5 1DQ an off licence along the parade of shops on Queensway Petts Wood.

 

(a)  Matters leading to the review were noted on the Review pack

 

IV  Facts arising out of the Hearing

 

(a)  Trading Standards’ case:

 

The Trading Standards’ case was stated by Ms. Hancock who explained the Trading Standards’ procedures, how the challenge 25 was tested--including the use of an 18 year old volunteer who was asked to purchase age restricted items. It was noted that on 15th August 2017, Trading Standards made an inspection visit to the premises and spoke with Mr. Babu Santhiralin.  Ms. Tracey Firth of Trading Standards discussed the law relating to underage restricted products and a free underage sales information pack was given.

 

On 10th February 2018, the underage test purchase took place, resulting in a sale, and was the subject of the review. On the 19th March 2018, a complaint was received from a local resident regarding a sale of individual cigarettes from open boxes to underage minors.

 

Licensing procedures were followed by the Chairman and an opportunity to ask any questions regarding the trading standard’s case was availed to all and no questions were asked.

 

(b)  The Licence Holder’s Representation:

 

The licence holder’s legal representative did not challenge the facts presented in the review application and at the hearing.  However, she mentioned that the review was the premises’ first. The member of staff who had made the underage sale of alcohol was no longer working at the  premises, and he had been dismissed.

 

Concerning the date noted on the photographs produced by Ms. Hancock; the license holder’s legal representative revisited the point.  There appeared to be some hesitation with respect to the licence holder and his legal representative  accepting the photographic evidence presented by Trading Standards as being taken on the date of the test purchase. It was also mentioned by the licence holder’s legal representative that the appearance of the volunteers on the photographs made it difficult to determine their age.  Ms. Hancock outlined the procedures taken by her team when selecting volunteers and the age that they were required to be. After a discussion between all parties, it was agreed that the photographic evidence combined with the clear explanation given by Ms. Hancock during the hearing was accepted by the licence holder and his legal representative as good evidence.

 

The premises refusal log book had been kept, and was circulated for members to view during the hearing.

 

The licence holder continued to cooperate with the Council’s Trading Standards’ Team.  This has been the first occasion that the premises had failed a test purchase.

 

(c)   At the hearing and during various discussions:

 

  • Members pointed out the discrepancies around the employee Babu’s full name.  The explanation from the licence holder was that the name ‘Babu’  was in fact the person’s nickname.

 

  • ‘Babu’ had limited and insufficient training provided by the licence holder (by mere verbal explanation), and not the required licencing training which is expected for licensing staff.

 

  • The till used at the above premises did not have a prompt to remind members of staff to ask for an ID. It was agreed that the owner should check it regularly to ensure that the till prompted when required.

 

  • There was a refusal log book which was kept. A discussion between the Chairman, Members and the licence holder (and his legal representative) regarding entries in the refusal log book took place.  It was agreed that entries to any refusal log book ought to be correctly entered and to be checked regularly to ensure that entries to the said book(s) are efficiently and correctly made.

 

  • There were two new staff members--both were yet to receive the appropriate licensing training.  The owner agreed to ensure that at least one staff member received the relevant licensing training. The owner, in response to a Member’s question stated that if both current staff refused to undergo the required licensing training, he would dismiss them and hire new staff that would be prepared to undergo the required licensing training course.

 

  • That it would be reasonable to attach the relevant recommendations as additional conditions into the current licence.  This was a fair approach rather than having to suspend the licence.  However, condition number 4 would have to take place at a later date as it would be impracticable to come into force immediately. 

 

  • Members discussed condition number 4 during the deliberation of the hearing, and agreed for condition number 4 to come into force after 31st October 2018. The reason for condition number 4 to coming into force after the 31st October 2018 was to allow the licence holder time to provide the relevant training to his staff member(s) at the premises.

 

  • That the licence holder and his staff would allow access for Trading Standards to revisit the premises at a later date (within the next 6 months). The licence holder’s legal representative mentioned to her client and made him aware of the implications of any further failed test purchase to underage minors. The licence holder agreed to relevant training for the staff members at the above premises. 

 

  • It transpired that the owner had moved from his Milton Keynes address (of which the original license relates to), to an address in Orpington. The Council’s licensing team leader mentioned to the owner, that as a separate process, the owner would have to ensure that he contacts the Council’s licensing team to update the relevant records.

 

V   Licensing Sub-Committee Members’ Input

 

During the licensing hearing, the Chairman, Licensing Sub-Committee Members and the licensing team leader asked relevant questions at various points. The Chairman also asked questions around the entries in the refusal log book which was circulated at the hearing.

 

Members deliberated on the above matter and reached a decision.

 

VI  Policy Guidance

 

The Licensing Authority, with the view to promote the licensing objectives would choose to determine a review by exercising its powers from a range of appropriate measures provided in the Licensing Act 2003 (as amended).

 

The Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy 2016-2021:

 

The Council’s Licensing Authority instructed its officers to adopt a zero tolerance approach to criminal offences committed in licensed premises in the Borough as indicated in the statement of Licensing Policy 2016-2021. Matters such as a breach of licence condition(s), may be investigated once a complaint or concern is raised.

 

Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 (As Amended)

 

Paragraph 11.19 – 11.20 of the Licensing Amended Guidance Issued under section 182 of The Licensing Act 2003 reads:

 

Paragraph 11.19 “Where the licensing authority considers that action under its statutory powers is appropriate, it may take any of the following steps:

 

  • Modify the conditions of the premises licence (which includes adding new conditions or any alteration or omission of an existing condition), for example, by reducing the hours of opening or by requiring door supervisors at particular times;
  • Exclude a licensable activity from the scope of the licence, for example to exclude the performance of live music or playing of recorded music (where it is not within the incidental live and recorded music exemption);
  • Remove the designated premises supervisor, for example, because they consider that the problems are the result of poor management;
  • Suspend the licence for a period not exceeding three months;
  • Revoke the licence”.

 

Paragraph 11:20 states:


“In deciding which of these powers to invoke, it is expected that licensing authorities should so far as possible seek to establish the cause or causes of the concerns that the representations identify.  The remedial action taken should generally be directed at these causes and should always be no more than an appropriate and proportionate response to address the causes of concern that instigated the review”.

 

VII  The Licensing Sub-Committee’s conclusions

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee carefully considered all the facts and circumstances of the case including the evidence presented to them by the Council’s Trading Standards Team, and the representations by the licence holder’s legal representative. They also considered relevant policies and guidelines relating to the above review.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee took into account the licence holder’s representations and  the fact that the licence holder was cooperative following the failure of a test purchase and had agreed to incorporate the conditions as mentioned.

 

Relevant measures such as staff training, diligently implementing the Challenge 25 policy, keeping a clear refusal record log book, ensuring the till reminder notice was working to prompt employees of the relevant restricted sales were to remain in place at all times.  The licence holder agreed to work with the Council’s Trading Standards Team in promoting the Licensing Objectives by providing access to Trading Standards’ visit to the premises within the next six months as agreed.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee took into account the fact that this was thefirst review of the premises licence, and decided that:

 

The decision at the hearing should be a formal warning to the licensing holder (DPS) andthat in the event of a further breach of the licence, the licence holder may face severe measures.

 

The added conditions to the premises licence were necessary and proportionate in the circumstances so as to promote the relevant licensing objectives.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee made the above review decision having considered all relevant matters and was satisfied with the course of action in order to promote the relevant licensing objective.

 

The licence holder had a right of appeal against the above decision to Bromley Magistrates’ Court within 21 days, if he wished to exercise that right.

Supporting documents: