The Committee considered an application by Thai Garden Ltd. for a new special treatment licence to be held in respect of Thai Garden Massage Therapy, 35 Artillery Lane, London, E1 7LP (“the Premises”). The application sought authorisation for the provision of massage only. One objection had been received against the application. This was from the Licensing Authority on the basis of the history of the Premises, which included test purchases resulting in the offer of sexual services by masseuses, and that the Premises appeared to have been carrying on or offering special treatment whilst the application was awaiting determination.

Applicant

The Committee heard from Chanakan Ayriss and her husband on behalf of the company. Thai Garden Massage Therapy 35 Artillery Lane, London E1 7LP. 

They explained that they had no connection with the previous owners and had spent around £50,000.00 refurbishing the Premises. All staff were qualified and no-one who had worked previously at the Premises was employed there. The Committee was also informed that they managed a premises in Bishops Stortford and had an unblemished record and good reviews, particularly from medical practitioners and other professionals.

Ms. Ayriss understood the concerns of the objectors and offered to install frosted glass panes or doors to the treatment rooms so that it would be possible to ensure that nothing inappropriate took place whilst still maintaining privacy. Beyond that, they could not see what else could reasonably be done to prevent sexual services being offered. The applicant asserted that it was not fair to judge them on the history of poor operators who were nothing to do with them.

It was accepted that the Premises had been open whilst the application was pending, and services had been offered. The officer, Mr. Mehboob Ahmed, had told them to close down and so they did. This was around 1^st September 2023.

Mr. Ayriss then explained that one staff member was a registered member of the CThA (the Complementary Therapists Association) and that there was an exemption for such therapists.

The Committee’s legal adviser did some research. He informed the Committee  

that their website stated the following:

“If you are performing treatments within all the London Boroughs and most other parts of the country you are required to have a Special Treatment License.

In recognition of the quality of CThA Members, we have been able to negotiate an exemption from this license for most Councils. This exemption could save you over £1000 per year. The yearly CThA membership fee is only £60.

There are a number of treatments that are classified as special treatments, but the main ones are Massage, Aromatherapy and Reflexology. You will need to have a licence to perform these treatments in all London Boroughs and in many council run areas in the UK unless you are a CThA Member.”

The papers in the report pack showed that Ms. Ayriss herself was a member of the CThA. Mr. Lewis, the Licensing Manager, checked the Council’s records and confirmed that the Council did apply an exemption for the CThA. Mr. Lewis confirmed that the usual process was that the person concerned would notify the Authority of their exemption. The Committee was given legal advice that this meant that Ms. Ayriss herself was exempt from the need for a licence but if the Premises was employing non-CThA masseuses, they would still need a licence. Ms. Ayriss had confirmed that the Premises had been closed since the beginning of September 2023, when the officer had last visited. She also confirmed that she had not been present at that time as she was abroad caring for her ill mother.

Members asked Mr. Ahmed if this information affected the Authority’s position in any way.

Mr Ahmed made his presentation to the Committee maintained that the Premises had a history of offering sexual services and that there had been breaches during the application period. When he had visited, there were four members of staff present, all wearing uniform. He had asked if massages were being given, which was confirmed, and he told them to stop until such time as they had a licence. Mr Ahmed sought the committee to refuse the grant of a special treatment licence for Tai Garden Massage Therapy 35 Artillery LANE, London E1 7LP.

Decision

The Committee took account of the history of the Premises in reaching its decision. It noted too, however, that these were not linked to the applicant. It also took account of the alleged breaches during the application period. These were not as clear-cut as first seemed. Ms. Ayriss herself did not need a licence and this meant that the Premises did not need to close during the application period as long as she herself was carrying out the treatments. The advice to close was therefore not entirely correct. It was accepted that she was abroad in September 2023 when the last visit took place and that was therefore technically a breach. However, it was possible, given the circumstances and Ms. Ayriss’s exemption, that this was a genuine misunderstanding as to the law and not a deliberate breach. She did close the Premises when told to do so, which suggests that there will be future compliance.

The concern for some members is whether the problems of the past will nonetheless recur. For that reason, the Committee determined to grant the application and issue a licence but that this would be for the period of six months rather than one year, in order to ensure that the Premises are managed properly and do not give rise to issues such as sexual services being offered. In addition, the Committee imposes the following two non-standard conditions, which will be additional to the standard conditions, and these are:

A)   All treatment room doors shall be fitted with frosted glass. This must allow the treatment area to be seen whilst maintaining the privacy and dignity of the customer.

B)   The glass to the treatment room doors must not be covered in any way by any means at any time that authorised special treatment is being carried out.