Agenda item
Licensing Act 2003 Application to Review the Premises Licence for (Parnell Mini-Market) 117a Parnell Road, London, E3 2RT
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Ms Corinne Holland, Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a review of the premises licence for Parnell Mini-Market, 177a Parnell Road, London E3 2RT. It was noted that the review had been brought by Trading Standards and was based on the licensing objective of protection of children from harm.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Alex Brander, Trading Standards Officer, explained the grounds for the review and said that following a complaint from a concerned parent on the 1st December 2021, a test purchase was undertaken by two police cadets on the 13th December 2021. The cadets were sold a can of larger, with no proof of age being asked for by the cashier. During the investigation, Mr MD Al Mamunul Huq, the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS), provided additional information and stated that the cashier did not believe the female cadet was underage and therefore allowed the sale.
Mr Brander said when Mr Huq, when questioned by Trading Standards at the interview on the 20th January 2022, he did not fully comprehend what a sale by proxy was or how to apply the Challenge 25 policy. Mr Brander said this was equally true for the members of staff employed by Mr Huq. He said the signage within the premises was obscure and did not meet with licensing requirements.
Furthermore, Mr Brander said Mr Huq could not explain the entries that had been retrospectively added to the training log. Mr Brander said that as part of a separate investigation into the sale of tobacco to underage children, the Trading Standards Tobacco Enforcement Officer, had visited the premises on the 12th November 2021. The Enforcement Officer had taken a photograph of the log, in which three entries existed, dated 08/03/21, 10/03/21 and 07/09/21. However, after that visit, Mr Huq had provided a copy of the training log to Trading Standards, at which point Trading Standards noted that further entries had been made to the training log predating the above visit, which had not been in that log at the time of that visit, namely entries dated 17/10/21, 24/10/21, and 15/11/21. Mr Brander said Mr Huq had been unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for this and admitted he had made entries in the log.
Mr Brander continued that Trading Standards were concerned about the lack of leadership at the premises and the consistent disregard for the licensing objectives. Mr Brander informed the Sub-Committee that the premises and the DPS had previously been fined £440 each due to selling cigarettes to underage children, on the 8th March 2020 and 29th July 2021. Mr Brander said he was alarmed at the text messages Mr Huq had sent staff, following the incident of 29th July, whereby he appeared to warn staff to be careful of test purchasers rather than focusing staff on upholding the licensing objectives.
PC Mark Perry, from the Metropolitan Police concurred with Mr Brander and supported the application for review. He stated that the history of selling to underage children, demonstrated that the premises and the DPS showed scant regard for the licensing objectives and therefore recommended the premises licence be revoked.
Members then heard from Mr Anwar Khan, solicitor for the DPS – Mr Huq, who initially asked to be able to cross-examine Mr Brander. Mr Wong, legal adviser to the Sub-Committee advised the Members that this was not permissible. Whilst the Sub-Committee was a quasi-judicial body, these were civil administrative proceedings governed by the Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005, regulation 23 of which said, “A hearing shall take the form of a discussion led by the authority and cross-examination shall not be permitted unless the authority considers that cross-examination is required for it to consider the representations, application or notice as the case may require.” Mr Anwar proceeded to state that the staff at the premises had undertaken a professional training course and were now fully conversant with the Challenge 25 policy and its application. He said Mr Huq intended to follow up the training with monthly in-house refresher courses and would ensure staff were monitored when he was not in the premises, by calling and texting his staff members. He said he would do this so to ensure they did not sell age-restricted products to underage children. Mr Anwar said the signage in the premises had been improved to show they operated a Challenge 25 policy. Mr Anwar said his client, Mr Huq apologised for the errors made and asked that the licence not to be revoked.
In response to questions the following was noted:
– Mr Brander clarified that company operating the premises and Mr Huq had been fined £440 each, for the breach of selling tobacco to underage children. Mr Brander confirmed these related to incidents on the 8th March 2020 and 29th July 2021.
– In response, Mr Huq stated that the business was relatively new at the time, and they were confused about the rules. He said staff had been sent on a training course and are now aware of the rules and regulations.
– Mr Huq said the staff member who sold the can of larger to the police cadet did not think the customer was 16 years of age or under. He referred to video footage of a sale an hour before the test purchase, which allegedly showed a purchase where the cashier had applied the Challenge 25 policy.
– Mr Huq accepted the signage in the premises was obscure and said this had been improved to make it more visible to customers.
– Mr Huq said prior to the test purchase of 13th December, staff were personally trained by him, but since then, all members of staff had been on a professional training course.
– Mr Huq said the training log had been adjusted to record training that had been completed previously.
– Mr Huq said it was common practice for the premises to operate a ‘tab’ system of payment, once the customer’s ID had been verified and the customer was known to them.
Concluding remarks were made by both parties.
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 licensing objectives:
- The Prevention of Crime and Disorder;
- Public Safety;
- The Prevention of Public Nuisance; and
- The Protection of Children from Harm.
Consideration
The Sub-Committee considered an application by Mr Alex Brander, on behalf of Tower Hamlets Trading Standards, for a review of the premises licence held by Huq Neighbours Limited in respect of Parnell Mini Market, 177a Parnell Road, London E3 2RT ("the Premises”). The review was based on the licensing objective of the protection of children from harm.
The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Brander that on the 1st December 2021, Trading Standards received a complaint from a concerned parent about the sale of alcohol to underage children. The parent stated the child had been able to purchase alcohol despite not having money for it, with the premises allowing the child to have a ‘tab’ with them. Mr Brander stated that as part of the Trading Standards operation, on the 13th December 2021, two underage police cadets were instructed to buy alcohol from the premises. Mr Brander said the test purchase occurred at approximately 18:48 hours, when the cadets were sold a can of larger. Mr Brander said that at no point during the transaction did the person serving at the till challenge the cadets for proof of age.
The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Brander that when Mr MD Al Mamunul Huq, the Designated Premises Supervisor, was interviewed by Trading Standards, he stated that the person at the till, Mr Mehedi Hasan did not think the female cadet was underage and therefore allowed the transaction. Mr Brander said it was clear the person manning the till did not understand what it meant to operate a Challenge 25 policy. Furthermore, when interviewed Mr Huq did not comprehend what a proxy sale was as it is illegal for an adult to buy alcohol on behalf of a child. Although in this instance the cadet was 16 years of age. Mr Brander said it was evident Mr Huq’s staff did not know how to apply the Challenge 25 policy, nor had he trained his staff on sales by proxy.
The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Brander that as part of the investigation, entries had been made in the training log to show staff had been given training in regard to the sale of age-restricted products. He said originally three entries were in the log, 08/03/21, 10/03/21 and 07/09/21. This was verified by a photograph taken by the Trading Standards Tobacco Enforcement Officer, who had visited the premises on the 12th November 2021, in respect to the selling of tobacco products to underage children. However further entries had been made in the log for 17/10/21, 24/10/21, 15/11/21 and 29/11/21. Mr Brander said Mr Huq sent the training records to him on the 20th December 2021 (page 231 of the agenda pack). Mr Brander had noted that the last four entries then appearing on the extract of the training log sent by Mr Huq had been added after the visit from the Trading Standards Tobacco Enforcement Officer.The Sub-Committee noted that only the last of these four entries should have been added to the training log since the Trading Standards Tobacco Enforcement Officer’s visit on 12th November 2021, and that the entries dated 17/10/21, 24/10/21, and 15/11/21 had not been there at the time of the visit to the premises on 12th November 2021, according to Mr Brander’s evidence, with particular reference to page 238 of the agenda pack. The Sub-Committee noted from Mr Brander that when Mr Huq was interviewed on the 20th January 2022, he was unable to satisfactorily explain these additions to the log.
The Sub-Committee were concerned to hear from Mr Brander that the premises had a track record of selling age-restricted goods to minors. He said the premises had been prosecuted for the sale of cigarettes to underage people, following a test purchase operation on the 8th March 2020 and 29th July 2021. Mr Brander said following those occasions, Mr Huq and the premises were each fined £440.
The Sub-Committee heard from Mr Brander about the text messages Mr Huq had sent his staff following the incident of 29th July 2021, whereby he instructed his staff to be careful of test purchasers, and the Sub-Committee shared Mr Brander’s concern that this was no substitute for adequate training or operation of an effective challenge policy. The Sub-Committee shared concern expressed by Mr Brander that Mr Huq was unfit to operate a premises licence, as he did not fully comprehend or appreciate the licensing objectives and had on a number of occasions as designated premises supervisor, presided over a licensed business which had sold age-restricted goods to underage persons.
The Sub-Committee noted representations made by Mr Anwar Khan, solicitor for the designated premises supervisor, that his client had sent his staff on a professional training course, since the incident of 13th December 2021; staff were now aware of how to apply the Challenge 25 policy; Mr Huq intended to follow this up with monthly in-house refresher courses; Mr Huq would be monitoring his staff, when not in the premises by calling and texting his staff members to ensure they did not sell age-restricted products to underage children; the signage within the premises had also been improved to show they operated the Challenge 25 policy; and Mr Huq apologised for the errors and asked for the licence not to be revoked.
However, the Sub-Committee found the designated premises supervisor’s representations wholly unconvincing, especially because when questioned about whether the premises operated a ‘tab’ system of payment, Mr Huq said it was common practice for the premises to offer ‘tabs’ in lieu of payment, which they did once they had verified the identity of the customer and the customer was known to them. The Sub-Committee found this to be a serious breach of responsibility in terms of leaving it open to minors to obtain alcohol through a tab system.
Furthermore, the Sub-Committee considered that the track record of the business in relation to underage sales of age-restricted goods left them with no confidence that the premises licence holder and designated premises supervisor would uphold the licensing objective of protecting children from harm. A premises licence to sell alcohol is granted on trust. If that trust has been severely broken by a poor track record of compliances in relation to preventing underage sales, then that business cannot be trusted to retain its licence. Nor does it suffice to point to instances where underage sales have not taken place, because compliance with the law on some occasions cannot excuse non-compliances on other occasions, nor show that the business can be trusted to be consistent in upholding the licensing objectives.
Accordingly, the Sub-Committee unanimously;
RESOLVED
That the application for a review of the Premises licence for Parnell Mini-Market, 117a Parnell Road, London E3 2RT be GRANTED and that the premises licence be revoked.
Supporting documents:
- ParnellRd117a, item 4.3 PDF 164 KB
- ParnellRd117a.AppendixRED, item 4.3 PDF 14 MB
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 4.3/3 is restricted