The Committee considered an application by Culian Fu for a special treatment licence to be held in respect of Lily Thai Spa, 1 Whites Row, London, E1 (“the Premises”). The application sought authorisation for the provision of massage and manicure.

The application was opposed by the Licensing Authority. This was based on the history of contraventions of the licence held in respect of the Premises previously and on the fact that a recent inspection showed the Premises to be open and offering special treatments whilst unlicensed.

Applicant

The Committee heard from Ms. Fu, who was assisted by an interpreter. She spoke very briefly to the application and said she was nothing to do with the previous owners. She held the lease until 2027 and had to pay the rent and business rates.

During questions from Members, she said that staff had been told that sexual services were not to be offered, that customers would be made aware, and that she would dismiss any staff member who did offer such services.

She was asked if she understood the concerns that the licence had been revoked and, since then, the Premises had been found to have been providing or offering unlicensed special treatments. She said that she needed to keep the Premises open as she had bills to pay and she had no choice. She had not been made aware of the problems at the Premises when she purchased the business in April 2022; she only found out about the problems subsequently. She had tried to dispose of the business but had been unable to do so. She admitted that the Premises had been open “for a few weeks” after the application had been made. Objections had been received and she had then closed.

Ms. Fu also asserted that she had tried to meet with officers but that they had refused to do so.

The Committee explored further into the applicant’s presentation which prompted further questioning which were answered and responded to.

Licensing Authority

James Doherty addressed the Committee on behalf of the Licensing Authority. He said he had visited on three occasions and on each occasion the Premises had been open. On the second and third visits, staff had confirmed that special treatment was being offered.

Mr. Doherty denied the allegation of refusing to meet with Ms. Fu but explained to the Committee that the history and the current contraventions meant that there was nothing that could be said to allay his concerns. He confirmed that the visits took place in August 2023 and on 11^th September and 19^th October 2023.

Mr Doherty sought the Committee to refuse the grant of a special treatment licence in respect of Lilly Thai Spa Massage 1 Whites Row, London E1 7NF.

Decision

The Committee accepted that Ms. Fu was not involved with the Premises when sexual services were offered in October 2021. Nor was she involved in 2019 when the company of which she is now a director was convicted of similar offences. However, there is nonetheless a long history of sexual services being offered at these Premises and that changes in management have not addressed that.

Whilst Ms. Fu stated that she needed to pay bills and that she could not dispose of the lease, it was not clear to the Committee what steps, if any, had been taken to do so. There was no evidence, for example, of attempts to sell the Premises nor of any steps taken to perhaps change the business. Nor was there evidence of any attempts to surrender the lease.

However, even if it was the case that Ms. Fu had done what she could, the fact remained that she made a decision to open in the knowledge that she had no licence to do so. She was aware that her application in October 2022 had been refused, in part because of the history. Having made this application and knowing that it had not been granted, Ms. Fu made the decision to open and offer special treatments whilst unlicensed. Mr. Doherty visited on three occasions between August and mid-October. The Committee inferred that if the Premises were open on each of those three occasions, it would have been open at other times during that period. That is not something that the Committee considers a responsible potential licensee would do and it did not give the Committee any confidence at all, if the licence were to be granted, that Ms. Fu would comply with the licence conditions or ensure that the masseuses would not offer sexual services.

The Committee did consider whether it could grant the licence with respect to the provision of manicure only. However, given Ms. Fu’s decision to operate whilst unlicensed and to do so knowing that she was unlicensed, the Committee did not consider it could have any faith in her to comply with the conditions relevant to such treatment.

The Committee was satisfied that Ms. Fu had shown that she was not a fit and proper person to be concerned in the conduct or management of the Premises and that the Premises have been improperly conducted and the application is therefore refused pursuant to s.8(c) and (e) of the London Local Authorities Act 1991.