At the request of the Chair, Mr Kamal Miah, Environmental Health Officer, introduced the report seeking a revocation of the special treatment licence for Natural Treatment, 35 Artillery Lane, London E1 7LP. He also explained that following on from the petition in 2017 from residents, it has been a priority to make sure that licensed premises are investigated and make sure they are operating in accordance with law. Therefore, it was taken upon officers to investigate premises and carry out mystery shoppers. It was noted that test purchases were carried out at this premises because it had been linked to sexual services that in the past based on Internet search under a different licence holder and therefore selected for a test purchase.

Mr Miah explained that test purchases were carried out on 15^th and 29^th October 2021 and, on both occasions during the massage, services of a sexual nature were offered to the test purchaser. A detailed account of the test purchases can be found on pages 123-131 of the agenda. It was also noted that on 22^nd March 2022, the Council became aware that the therapists who offered the sexual services during the test purchases has not been approved by the Council to carry out massage treatments.

Mr Miah concluded that the licence was renewed on 17^th June 2022. However, now that the premises is associated to services of a sexual nature, he recommended that the licence be revoked by the Committee.

The Committee then heard from Ms Yani Wang, Premises Licence Holder. She read through a statement that she circulated at the meeting (the statement can be found in the tabled papers published as part of a supplemental agenda. She referred to having been “cheated” by the previous owner when she purchased the business in March 2020. Her statement referred to having heard of sexual services being offered in massage parlours but was nothing to do with her, but she now “…had to deal with the problem, the problem that was left over from the previous owner.”

Ms. Wang spoke to her thirty years’ of experience in this industry. She suggested it should be the masseuses who should be regulated and suffer the risk of being unable to work if they offered sexual services, rather than penalising the employer. She accepted that there was a high risk of sexual services being offered but also accepted that her employees were doing what others do and they were just unlucky. She also suggested some form of collusion between officers and premises. In a second statement, Ms. Wang provided screenshots of messages between her and the massage therapist, in which the therapist denied offering the services. Ms. Wang said she did not believe that either the test purchaser or her massage therapist would lie. She suggested that she should have been made aware much sooner of the incidents, than having wait for a hearing to be conducted by the Council. Statement have been included as part of the tabled papers.

In response to questions the following was noted;

-       That Ms Wang had 8 years remaining on the current premises lease.

-       That there were no locks or shower facilities in the treatment rooms.

-       That once Ms Wang took over the premises, she had hired new members of staff and did not use the previous owner’s staff.

-       That the premises was selected for test purchases based on direct complaints, suspicions and from previous history of the premises from previous owner and internet searches.

-       That in total the premises had four treatment rooms and one rest room for staff.

-       That when staff are appointed, passport checks and certificate/qualification checks are conducted.

-       Staff were paid via bank transfer.

-       Ms. Wang accepted that the operation of the Premises was her responsibility yet suggested that it was not possible to control what goes on once the door to the therapy room is closed.

-       Mr. Miah was asked why it had taken until February 2022 before these allegations were brought to Ms. Wang’s attention. He explained that the service had a number of cases to investigate, not just this one, and those took time. Evidence needed to be obtained and lines of enquiry pursued and it took a considerable period of time to be able to put cases together for either Committee or for referring to Legal Services. He confirmed that the case had been brought to the committee within an appropriate time frame.

There were no other interested parties present to make a representation. Therefore the Chair announced that the Committee would deliberate after the meeting and the decision would be sent out in writing.

The Licensing Committee considered an application by the Licensing and Safety Team seeking the revocation of the special treatment licence held by Yani Wang in respect of Natural Treatment, 35 Artillery Lane, London, E1 (“the Premises”). The basis of the application was that two test purchases carried out in October 2021 had resulted in sexual services being offered by therapists.

The Committee heard from Mr. Ali, who outlined the test purchases and the reasons why revocation was sought. Aside from the sexual activity, the report noted that there were also breaches of the conditions restricting massages from being given by persons of the opposite sex to the person receiving the treatment and requiring therapists to be approved. The Premises were being improperly conducted, the activity alleged was tantamount to prostitution, such offences were often linked to other criminal activity, and the perpetuation of these activities tarnished the Borough’s reputation.

Ms. Wang attended and read out a prepared statement. She referred to having been “cheated” by the previous owner when she purchased the business in March 2020. Her statement referred to having heard of sexual services being offered in massage parlours but was nothing to do with her, but she now “…had to deal with the problem, the problem that was left over from the previous owner.”

Ms. Wang spoke to her thirty years’ of experience in this industry. She suggested it should be the masseuses who should be regulated and suffer the risk of being unable to work if they offered sexual services, rather than penalising the employer. She accepted that there was a high risk of sexual services being offered but also accepted that her employees were doing what others do and they were just unlucky. She also suggested some form of collusion between officers and premises. In a second statement, Ms. Wang provided screenshots of messages between her and the massage therapist, in which the therapist denied offering the services. Ms. Wang said she did not believe that either the test purchaser or her massage therapist would lie. She suggested that she should have been made aware much sooner of the incidents.

During questions from Members, Ms. Wang accepted that the operation of the Premises was her responsibility yet suggested that it was not possible to control what goes on once the door to the therapy room is closed. She told the Committee that she had not used the previous owner’s staff. Mr. Miah was asked why it had taken until February 2022 before these allegations were brought to Ms. Wang’s attention. He explained that the service had a number of cases to investigate, not just this one, and those took time. Evidence needed to be obtained and lines of enquiry pursued and it took a considerable period of time to be able to put cases together for either Committee or for referring to Legal Services.

The Committee was satisfied as to the evidence of the test purchasers, which was in the agenda packs and which amounted to a breach of conditions 7B, 8A and 9 of the Council’s standard conditions which apply to all special treatment licences. The Committee did not find Ms. Wang to be at all credible. Whilst her prepared statements appeared to suggest that these problems had materialised under the previous owner’s management and that they had only come to light after that, this did not fit with her own evidence. She had purchased the business in March 2020, she had not taken on the staff, and the test purchases had occurred in October 2021. She accepted her responsibility and yet sought to downplay it. She appeared to suggest that it was simply not possible to control the actions of her therapist.

In addition, Ms. Wang knew or ought to have known of the condition requiring all therapists to be approved. The therapist in October 2021 was not approved.

The Council’s standard conditions and the statutory grounds reasons for revocation are all focused on the safety and suitability of the Premises for the treatments and for those working and visiting. It is the responsibility of the licence holder to ensure compliance and if they do not know how to do so then it calls into question their fitness and propriety to hold a licence. The Committee was satisfied that the Ms. Wang was not exercising proper control of the Premises. She was failing to comply with at least three conditions and appeared to suggest that the offer of sexual activity was simply impossible to control. In light of everything that it had heard, the Committee was satisfied that it was appropriate to revoke the licence on the basis of section 8(c), 8(d) and 8(e) of the London Local Authorities Act, namely that the persons concerned in the conduct or management of the premises could be reasonably regarded as not being fit and proper to hold such a licence, that treatments were being given by people who were not suitably qualified, and that the premises have been or are being improperly conducted.

Accordingly, the Committee unanimously;

That the Revocation of the special treatment licence for Natural Treatment, 35 Artillery Lane, London, E1 7LP be GRANTED.