At the request of the Chair, Mr Kamal Miah, Environmental Health Officer, introduced the report which was seeking a refusal to grant a special treatment licence for Vanilla Thai Massage, 1 Whites Row, London E1 7NF. He explained the reason for the objection and gave a brief history of the premises.

It was noted that Redbud (London) Ltd previously held a special treatment licence which was granted on 23^rd March 2016 and renewed annually until 14^th March 2019 when its renewal application was refused by Licensing Committee for offering services of a sexual nature. Then on the 23^rd March 2019, Redbud (London) Ltd was convicted at Thames Magistrates Court of an offence under the London Local Authorities Act 1991 Section 14(2).  This was due to the offering of services of a sexual nature in breach of its special treatment licence conditions.

It was further noted that on the 16^th October and 29^th October 2021, test purchases were carried out by a professional surveillance company and found services of a sexual nature were being offered during the massage treatment on both occasions. Ms. Kwan was the licence holder at this time.  Ms Cheung Lai Kwan’s special treatment licence was revoked by Licensing Committee on the 14^th July 2022.  She was a listed as a director of Redbud (London) Ltd at the time of the test purchases.

Mr Miah also highlighted that the two massage therapists listed in the new application made by Redbud (London) Ltd are the same therapists listed under the previous licence held by Ms Kwan at the test purchases. For these reasons, the Licensing and Safety Team had concerns that the premises has been operated improperly. Furthermore, the proposed licence holder, Redbud (London) Ltd, cannot reasonably be regarded as fit and proper to hold a special treatment licence given the previous recent conviction for breaches of the London Local Authorities Act 1991 for similar issues that occurred in October 2021.

Members then heard from Mr Robert Sutherland representing the Applicant Ms Cui Lan Fu. He stated that nothing said by Mr Miah was being disputed. He referred to the supporting documents submitted which set out the statements setting out the circumstances for which the application had been applied for. He explained that the applicant had acquired the company name in order to take over the premises and in turn change company ownership. He explained that the applicant has had no history with the premises, no history with the previous operation of the business or the previous operators under Redbud London Ltd.

Mr Sutherland acknowledged the fact that there may be concerns  in relation to this particular Applicant because of the history of the premises and therefore asked the Committee to consider granting a licence for a short period of three months to enable Ms Fu to make an application to transfer that licence into her own personal name or into another company formally separating herself from Redbud Ltd. This would also enable officers to consider Ms Fu’s application in view of her experience and good record she operates in her other premises.

Mr Sutherland assured the committee that Ms Fu would seek to operate at this particular premises with high standards and ensure that allegations to which Mr Miah refers to doesn't happen again. Ms Fu intends to put in rigorous checks and balances to ensure this doesn’t happen again. As well as this a detailed document has been drafted which sets out the requirements that expects from her therapists with regards to their experience and also a declaration that makes it very clear that they can't be offering and shouldn't be offering any sexual services. The document also gets therapists to confirm that they have not been arrested or convicted or charged or investigated in any acts in relation to prostitution or offering any services of sexual services. This was in hope that any therapist would be discouraged from doing such acts if it’s in the form of a contract that they're going to enter into.

Mr Sutherland also highlighted the fact that the premises will display signage around the premises making it clear that if a customer is offered sexual services and if it is reported then the money for the service initially provided would be refunded. This would be addressing the problem directly and making it clear that such activity would not be tolerated at the premises. It was also noted that Ms Fu would also look to appointing her own mystery shopper which again will provide some checks and balances to ensure the quality of services are maintained but also sexual services are not being offered without her knowledge.

Mr Sutherland concluded by urging Members to grant the licence for up to three months in order for the licence to be transferred into Ms Fu’s name or into another acceptable company name and within that space of time she will be able to re-establish the operation of the premises.

In response to questions, it was noted;

-       That the applicant was not involved or aware of any wrong doings at the premises before taking over the premises.

-       The applicant was only made aware of the allegations when objections were raised by Council Officers and she was contacted by Democratic Services for the hearing. 

-       Mr. Miah was asked why it had taken until now before these allegations were brought to Ms. Fu’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.

At this juncture, Mr Jonathan Melnick, Legal Advisor to the Committee, pointed out that Councillor Rebekha Sulthana had left the meeting for a short while during the submissions for this application and she was therefore advised that she could not participate in the decision making for this particular application during deliberations. However, she could remain and participate for the rest of the meeting.

Concluding remarks were made by both parties.

Decision

The Licensing Committee considered an objection to an application by Redbud (London) Ltd. for a new special treatment licence (MST licence) in respect of Vanilla Thai Massage, 1 White’s Row, London, E1 (“the Premises”). The application had been objected by the Licensing Authority on the basis that there was a history of sexual services having been offered by therapists at the Premises.

Kamal Miah, on behalf of the Licensing Authority, explained his objection. The company had previously held an MST licence from March 2016 until March 2019. In March 2019 the company and its then-director were convicted of offences under s.14 of the London Local Authorities Act 1991 for breaches of licence conditions, which included therapists offering sexual services. A renewal application had been refused in March 2019.

An MST licence had subsequently been issued to Cheung Lai Kwan. On 16^th and 29^th October 2021, test purchases were carried out at the Premises. On both occasions the therapist carrying out the massage had offered the test purchaser sexual services. Ms. Kwan was at this time the director of Redbud (London) Ltd. The licence was subsequently revoked at a Licensing Committee hearing on 14^th July 2022. Given the history, he was of the view that the Premises had been or were improperly conducted, that the applicant could reasonably be regarded as not fit and proper to hold a licence, and that the applicant had been convicted of an offence under the 1991 Act in the five years immediately preceding the application.

Robert Sutherland addressed the Committee on behalf of Ms. Fu, the sole director of the company. There was no dispute as to the history. The reason the application had been made in the company name was that the company held the lease. Ms. Fu had taken over the company in April 2022 and she had done so for administrative convenience, since it would mean that the lease of the Premises did not need to change hands. She had no history with the Premises or the previous operators.

Although the company was the same, its controlling mind was not. He submitted that if the Committee had a concern then one option was to grant the licence for a short period of time, perhaps three months, to allow the authority to be satisfied as to compliance and also to allow for the licence to be transferred to Ms. Fu personally or into another company name. The Committee was told that she operated other premises without incident.

The Premises offered to change its name to Bamboo Thai, to dispel any association with the former operators. The therapists previously working at the Premises would not be employed and she would place signage to make clear that sexual services would not be on offer.

Despite the apparent change in ownership, the Committee’s concerns were not assuaged. There was a history of sexual services at the Premises, as evidenced by test purchases. To date, the premises had been licensed to two entities; the company and to Ms. Kwan. Sexual services had been offered while under the management of both. Ms. Kwan was not a director of the company at the time of the first test purchase, having been appointed as director in December 2019. Given that one change in ownership or management had apparently not changed matters, the Committee was unable to give any real weight to Ms. Fu’s assurances that she would not operate in the same way.

It also appeared to the Committee that Ms. Fu had not carried out sufficient due diligence before taking over the company. Had she done so, it might be that she would have been aware of the history and would not have taken over the Premises.

The Committee also considered there to be a risk of previous clients returning to the Premises in order to obtain sexual services.

There was no dispute that the company had been convicted of a criminal offence in March 2019. The Committee considered the suggestions of signage and a shorter period. The former gave no comfort since the offer of sexual services was already prohibited by standard conditions; the latter was not appropriate because it would not address the concerns of the previous history and it would not be a realistically long period in which to assess compliance. A longer period was considered but that imposed a burden on the Authority to monitor compliance. Ultimately, nothing that the Committee had heard gave it sufficient confidence that the Premises would be operated in strict compliance with the conditions having regard to the history.

The Committee was therefore satisfied that it was appropriate to refuse the application on the basis of section 8(c), 8(e), and 8(l), of the London Local Authorities Act 1991, 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 the premises have been or are being improperly conducted, and that the applicant has within five years immediately preceding the application been convicted of an offence under the London Local Authorities Act 1991.

Accordingly, the Committee made a majority decision;

6 Against

1 For 

RESOLVED

That the application for a special treatment licence for Redbud (London) Ltd. in respect of Vanilla Thai Massage, 1 White’s Row, London, E1 7NF be REFUSED.