Agenda item
Application for a Review of a Premises Licence at Low Cost Food and Wine, 34 White Church Lane, London, E1 7QR
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Mr Mohshin Ali, Senior Licensing Officer, introduced the report which detailed the application for a review of the premises licence for Low Cost Food & Wine, 34 White Church Lane, London E1 7QR. It was noted that the review had been triggered by the Metropolitan Police. It was noted that there was also an application for the variation of the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS).
Members agreed to consider both these applications together.
At the request of the Chair Mr Leo Charalambides, Counsel representing the Metropolitan Police briefly stated that they were asking for a revocation of the premises licence and to refuse the transfer of the DPS. It was noted that Mr Latib, Premises Licence Holder, was not present at the meeting. There were grave concerns about Mr Latib, his management, his legal status and whether he had the right to have a licence.
Mr Charalambides stated that this premises was a misleading food and wine store, as it was described as a convenience store but in actual fact it was an off licence. It was noted that the conditions of the premises licence had been breached on numerous occasions which was detailed in the agenda. As well as this there had been a series of incidents and police visits and crime reports in relation to the premises, which were due to;
- Conditions that had been breached
- Failed test purchases
- Seizure of non duty paid alcohol
- Trading outside licensing hours
- Trading without a DPS
It was further noted that Mr Latib had no visa to remain in the country and had falsely signed statements. That Mr Rashid was a Director of the company which was illegally run and therefore dealing in money laundering, he himself had sold after hours and had stayed open later than terminal hours and has been acting as a DPS without authority. Mr Charalambides concluded that both Mr Latib and Mr Rashid lived at the same address and there was no confidence in Mr Rahid to take over the licence as DPS.
Members then heard from Mr Helal Miah, Legal Representative representing Mr Rashid, who stated that all the incidents referred to about Mr Latib were allegations as there have been no persecutions of fraud and that Mr Latib was no longer with the company. He stated that Mr Rashid was young and prepared to learn from mistakes and was now aware of rules and regulations and should not be burdened with the mistakes made by Mr Latib. Mr Miah stated that Mr Rashid was not aware that he could not act as a DPS in Mr Latib’s absence, however when this was brought to his attention he applied for a variation straight away.
Mr Miah asked Members to note that it was a very small company and prone to misunderstandings of the law. It was noted that Mr Rashid and two other members of staff were trained on how to operate the CCTV cameras. He concluded that all the allegations made referred to the previous owner and that Mr Latib was no longer involved in the day to day running of the business.
In response to questions the following was noted;
- That Mr Latib and Mr Rahid lived at the same address.
- That the premises did sell groceries besides just alcohol.
- That single cans of beer and largar were sold.
- That Mr Rashid had always been a Director for the premises.
Mr Charalambides concluded that the retail sale of alcohol was a serious matter and that nothing heard at the meeting gave them confidence that the premises would be managed and controlled properly and therefore no confidence in the management and no option but to consider revocation.
Members retired to consider their decision at 4.00pm and reconvened at 4.10pm.
The Licensing Objectives
In considering the application, Members were required to consider the same in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 (as amended), the Licensing Objectives, the Licensing Guidance and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy.
Consideration
Each application must be considered on its own merits and after careful consideration the Chair stated that the Sub Committee had decided to grant the application by revoking the licence in order to address the concerns raised in relation to the licensing objectives of “the prevention of public nuisance” and ‘the prevention of crime and disorder’.
The Sub Committee noted both comments and representations from both parties and listened carefully to all the evidence. The issue of the composition of the shop was of a red herring and Members were primarily considering the crime and disorder aspect of the review application.
The respondent accepted that the incidents took place. Members felt that they had no confidence in the current management and believed it to be appropriate and proportionate to revoke the licence as this premises licence holder had shown lack of compliance to legislation and licensing conditions. The Chair stated that imposing new conditions would not address the concern as the premises already had conditions which have been breached so therefore revocation was the only option available.
Decision
Accordingly, the Sub-Committee unanimously –
RESOLVED
That the application for a review of the premises licence for Low Cost Food &
Wine, 34 White Church Lane, London E1 7QR be REVOKED.
Supporting documents:
- Low Cost Review cover report, item 4.4 PDF 102 KB
- Low Cost Review Appendices Part 1, item 4.4 PDF 18 MB
- Low Cost Review Appendices Part 2, item 4.4 PDF 25 MB
- Low Cost Review Appendices Part 3, item 4.4 PDF 187 KB