Agenda item
Application for a Review of a Premises Licence at Cost Price, 41 Brick Lane, London, E1 6PU
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Ms Kathy Driver, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a review of the premises licence for Cost Price, 41 Brick Lane, London E1 6PU. It was noted that the review had been triggered by the Licensing Authority and supported by the Metropolitan Police and Trading Standards.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Damian Doherty, Licensing Officer referred to his review application on pages 153-157 of the agenda. He explained that the premises had been reviewed previously by Tower Hamlets Trading Standards on 15th October 2013 and resulted in conditions being imposed onto the licence. It was also noted that on 10th March 2018 an alcohol test purchase was made by a Licensing Officer after the terminal hour at 01:15am the member of staff present who made the sale said that neither the Premise Licence Holder nor the Designated Premises Supervisor was available. Further offences which were noted were that a current copy of the licence was unavailable, the wrong summary was on display and there was not a refusal/incident book as required by one of their licence condition.
Mr Doherty also explained that on Friday 27th April at 23:15 hours, Council Officers attended the unlicensed premises known as Mexican Grille, 194 Mile End Road, this was also another business owned by Mr Mohammed Shilu Chowdhury, Premises Licence Holder for Cost Price. Officers ordered and received hot food and hot drinks and staff were informing customers that the restaurant closed at 1am. A written warning was issued and later an application was made for late night refreshments which was refused by the Licensing Sub Committee.
It was also noted that Mr Chowdhury was also the Premises Licence Holder at another off licence called Jerrin News at 90 Mile End Road, and this licence was currently suspended due to non-payment of the annual licence fee. Mr Doherty concluded that the licensee had no regard to meeting the licensing objectives, the premises continues to knowingly undertake unlicensed activity and clearly the licensee had not taken the prior review or prior prosecutions seriously enough to improve the management of the premises. He said that taking into account the history of the premises and the history of Mr Choudhury’s running of other premises within the Borough he proposed that the Sub-Committee should consider the revocation of the licence.
Members then heard from PC Mark Perry representing the Metropolitan Police who echoed the comments made by Mr Doherty and expressed concerns of trading outside licensed hours and even when found guilty in Court there had been no regard to rules and regulations and therefore not fit to run the premises and cannot be trusted to follow licence conditions.
Members also heard from Mr Nazir Ali, Trading Standards Officer, he expressed concerns that sales of tobacco products were made to persons under the age of 18 years on two separate occasions, on 13th April and 7th August 2018. He stated that Mr Chowdhury was deemed not fit and proper person to comply with the licensing objective of the protection of children from harm.
At the request of the Chair, Mr David Dadds, Legal Representative on behalf of Mr Choudhury stated that any application should be considered on its own merits and other premises owned by Mr Choudhury should not be considered. He said that paying a fee late didn’t make Mr Choudhury un fit or improper to hold a licence. He said that that a test purchase was done in April 2018 and the sale of alcohol was successfully refused.
Mr Dadds said that there had been only one offence of trading outside hours and in any event where there is non-compliance of conditions, the relevant responsible authority should take steps to meet with the licensee, discuss an action plan, discuss training needs and take a graduated approach before a review application is made. He acknowledged that the underage sale of tobacco was serious and should have been the trigger for the review.
He said that Mr Choudhury accepted that steps needed to be taken, it was noted that Mr Choudhury was the landlord, however has not been directly running the business since August 2017 due to ill health and therefore leases to the business to tenants. It was noted Mr Ruhel Amin was the person operating the business and accepts making the underage sale of tobacco in August 2018 and has had refresher training, and proposes to train all staff and introduce till prompt for age restricted products and introduce the challenge 25 policy. It was noted that at the time of this sale Mr Amin and his wife had just had a new baby and his wife was suffering from post-natal depression and therefore sleepless nights, lack of awareness etc. were his mitigating reasons for making the sale. Mr Dadds said that Mr Amin was very apologetic and is undertaking further training. Mr Dadds concluded that revocation in this instance was harsh and disproportionate and a suspension of the licence in order to get the appropriate training and introduce till prompts would be more appropriate.
In response to questions from Members the following was noted;
- That the alcohol test purchase in April 2018 had been correctly refused.
- That an out of hours sale of alcohol was made in March 2018
- That there had been two offences of selling tobacco to minors
- Conditions proposed were to introduce till prompts for age restricted products, introduce the Challenge 25 policy and offer training for all staff.
Mr Dadds stated that selling tobacco was not serious enough for revocation of the licence and a suspension of the licence was more proportionate. He also suggested that officers could inspect the premises for training records etc. before opening after suspension period.
He said that any reference to other premises should be dismissed and any steps should be reasonable and proportionate.
In summation, PC Mark Perry stated that Members should look at the evidence before them, note that there they had been operating outside hours, operating without a licence, and failing test purchases and should note the history of other premises owned by the Mr Choudhury. He stated that Mr Choudhury had a lack of regard to rules and regulations and licensing objectives and revocation of the licence should be considered.
Mr Dadds stated that the previous review was 6 years ago, a non-payment of a fee was not an offence and not relevant. And as for trading without licence, Mr Choudhury had initially thought there was a licence in place. He said in totality there were two offences of selling tobacco to underage minors and this should warrant a suspension and conditions and revocation of the licence would be disproportionate.
Members adjourned the meeting at 5.10pm to deliberate and reconvened at 5.35pm.
The Licensing Objectives
In considering the application, Members were required to consider the same in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (as amended), the Licensing Objectives, the Home Office Guidance and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and in particular to have regard to the promotion of the four licencing objectives:
The Prevention of Crime and Disorder;
Public Safety;
Prevention of Public Nuisance; and
The Protection of Children from Harm
Consideration
Each application must be considered on its own merit. The Sub Committee had carefully considered all of the evidence before them and considered written and verbal representation made by Licensing Authority supported by officers representing the Metropolitan Police and Trading Standards and also heard from the Legal Representative, representing the Premises Licence Holder with particular regard to the three licensing objectives of the prevention of public nuisance, the prevention of crime and disorder and the protection of children from harm.
Members determined that the incidents of failed test purchases; the selling of alcohol outside licensable hours and selling age restricted products (tobacco) to minors were of serious concerns. Members accepted that the Premises License Holder and the Designated Premises Supervisor accepted these failings and were apologetic and had shown remorse. Both had been trained and are undertaking further training in order to sell responsibly.
Members were very concerned that someone underage was able to purchase age restricted products in the form of tobacco and therefore concerned with the adequacy of checks being made when such products are being sold.
Whilst Members noted the Premises Licence Holder’s efforts by proposing additional conditions, Members felt that on the balance of probabilities there was a serious risk of crime and disorder and the protection of children from harm associated with the premises therefore due to the seriousness of the incidents and lack of confidence in the management, Members made a decision and the decision was unanimous. Members decided to grant the review by suspending the premises licence for the maximum period of three months.
Members consider this suspension a necessary and proportionate response to the very serious incidents which occurred as it will allow the Premises Licence Holder to do all that is necessary to address the issues which have come to light, train staff and put in place all the conditions imposed on the license to further promote the licensing objectives.
Decision
Accordingly, the Sub-Committee unanimously –
RESOLVED
That the application for a Review of the Premises Licence for, Cost Price, 41 Brick Lane, London E1 6PU be GRANTED with the Suspension of the Licence and conditions.
Suspension
The Suspension of all licensable activities for a period of three months.
(The decision notice will state the exact dates the suspension will commence and end on)
Conditions
1. All members of staff who are authorised to sell alcohol shall be properly trained in the legal requirements and restrictions to sell alcohol.
a) A record shall be maintained and kept at the Premises detailing the name of each member of staff trained; the date training was provided; details of the person who provided the training and an acknowledgment that staff have been so trained.
b) The record shall be available for inspection by authorised officers of the Licensing Authority and the Police at all times the Premises are open.
c) Staff shall receive regular refresher training in the Licensing Act 2003 at intervals of no more than 12 months.
2. To install till prompts for age restricted products.
3. A Challenge 25 policy will be operated at the premise. Acceptable forms
of identification are a passport, photo-card driving licence and PASS accredited identification card
Supporting documents: