At the request of the Chair, Mr Lekan Olomo, Environmental Health Officer, introduced the report which was seeking refusal to grant a special treatment licence for Rain Therapy Centre, 56 Skylines Village, London E14 9TS. He explained the reason for the objection and gave a brief history of the premises.

It was noted that on 20^th September 2018 (being operated by a different company/person), a test purchase was carried out by a professional surveillance company and found services of a sexual nature were offered during the massage treatment.  This resulted in a previous licence being refused by the Licensing Committee on 28^th November 2018. Then on the 14^th of October and 29^th of October 2021, further test purchases were carried out and found services of a sexual nature were offered during the massage treatment on both occasions.  As a result, the previous licence holder and its director were each convicted of an offence under the London Local Authorities Act 1991 and therefore they did not renew their licence. Mr Olomo stated that for these reasons, the Licensing and Safety Team have concerns that the premises has been operated improperly. Therefore, concluded by asking Members of the Committee to refuse the application under Section 8 of the London Local Authority Act 1991.

Members then heard from Mr Christopher Adiole, representative on behalf of the Applicant, Ms Wang. It was noted that the applicant was present at the meeting with her daughter who would help translate. He explained that the applicant had recently been going through bereavement due to the loss of her husband.

Mr Adiole explained that the allegations referred to in the witness statements were carried out with the previous owners and that the applicant took over the business in February 2022. During this time there was a valid licence in place. In the month of February there was a visit by Council Officers during the visit Ms Wang was at the premises and had a chance to speak to the officers and asked them about the purpose of the visit and if there were any concerns. However, at the time the Officer’s response was rather vague and didn't indicate there was any concerns in relation to the services being provided at the premises.

A few days after the visit, Ms Wang wrote to the Council before purchasing the business asking if there were any concerns in relation to the business but none were raised and therefore Ms Wang completed the purchase. At the time of purchase there was a valid licence in place for a special treatment licence and therefore there was no suggestion that there had been any wrongdoings at that premise. It was stated that it could be confirmed via Companies House Ltd that at the time when the test purchases were being carried out, the previous owners of the of the business was ACU Herbs Limited and they are the persons that were accused of wrongdoings and there was no evidence that Ms Wang had any connections with them. Ms Wang had purchased the premises in good faith and without any knowledge of any previous wrongdoing.

It was also highlighted that Ms Wang was a qualified therapist and never been convicted of any offence and no offence had been suggested against her in the past. Mr Adiloe confirmed that Ms Wang had completely rebranded the service and the company is owned by an entirely separate director and has no connection to the previous owners.

It was also noted that Ms Wang had not retained any of the therapist from the previous owners and she was in fact the only therapist at the premises qualified to carry out the services and in future only intended to recruit or retain qualified persons in relation to any services to be carried out at the premises.

Ms Wang addressed the Committee very briefly and highlighted her experiences and her lack of attention to the business due to the recent loss of her husband. She confirmed that she would be the sole therapist and had no connections to the previous owners.

In response to questions, it was noted;

-       That an email was sent by Council Officers to the Applicant suggesting that due to the history of the premises they would likely object to a licence application. 

-       That the premises as a whole was an attraction for customers who have previously been offered services of a sexual nature at these premises.

-       That there have been no further test purchases since February 2022.

-       That the applicant was not in a financial position to employ any other therapists, she would be the sole therapist until such a time she is financially able to employ additional staff. 

-       Mr Olomo confirmed that he had met with Ms Wang at the premises in February 2022 and  during the visit he had informed Ms Wang that there were issues of concern. Further, in a later email exchange, it was made clear that, due to the history of the premises, there would be an objection to a new application. 

Concluding remarks were made by both parties. 

Decision

The Licensing Committee considered an objection to an application for a new special treatment licence (MST licence) by Human Health Ltd. in  respect of premises at 56 Skylines Village, London, E14 9TS. The objection referred to a history of sexual services being offered at the Premises.

The Committee heard from Lekan Olomo. The Premises had come to the Council’s attention in September 2018 when they were found to be carrying on special treatments without a licence. A test purchase later that month resulted in the purchaser being offered sexual services.

An application was submitted for an MST licence and this was refused by the Committee in November 2018. The Premises changed its name to Rain Therapy and was operated by a company called Acu & Herbs Ltd. They operated from July 2020 to July 2022 under an MST licence. However, two test purchases on 14^th and 29^th October 2021 resulted in sexual services being offered. As a result, the company did not apply to renew the licence.

That company and its director were each convicted on 26^th July 2022 of an offence under the London Local Authorities Act 1991, arising from those test purchases.

The consequence is that there is a pattern and a history of sexual services being offered. Given that only massage was sought in this application, Mr. Olomo considered it likely that there would be further offences.

Christopher Adiole addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant. He explained that she had recently lost her husband and had not been as focused as she might otherwise have been on this application. The allegations did not relate to her, however. She had taken over the business in February 2022, at which time there was a valid licence. She had spoken to an officer when he had visited and had been told there were no problems. Had she been informed otherwise, she would not have purchased the Premises.

Mr. Adiole stated that his client had no convictions, that she was a qualified therapist, and that she had not retained any of the previous therapists. She had rebranded the service. He further submitted that the authority had a precedent of granting licences even where there had been a history and that his client should be given an opportunity.

Officers confirmed that there had been no further test purchases to date. The Legal Adviser asked Mr. Olomo if he could shed any further light on the visit in February 2022. Mr. Olomo confirmed he had visited with a colleague on 9^th February 2022. Ms. Wang had been present. There was a concern about non-approved therapists working there and he had alluded to there having been some problems. Mr. Olomo told the Committee that Ms. Wang advised she had bought the business three days earlier.

The Committee accepted that Ms. Wang did not appear to have been involved with the Premises previously. However, the history showed a pattern of sexual services being offered and it was reasonable to infer that others would have occurred. That none of the former therapists would be employed would not stop others offering similar services.

Whilst the Committee noted the suggestion that officers misled the applicant into buying the business, Members accepted Mr. Olomo’s account of the visit of 9^th February 2022, at which point Ms. Wang told him that the business had already been purchased.

Whether or not the Authority has previously granted licences where there had been a prior history does not set any precedent. Each application must be decided on its own merits. There was a history with this Premises and the Committee was not satisfied that this would change under the applicant’s management.

Having regard to the representations from the parties, the Committee was satisfied that the Premises have been or are being improperly conducted and that refusal of the licence was appropriate under s.8(e) of the London Local Authorities Act 1991.

Accordingly, the Committee made a majority decision;

5 Against

4 For 

RESOLVED

That the application for a special treatment licence for Human Health Ltd. in respect of Rain Therapy, 56 Skylines Village, London E14 9TS be REFUSED.