Agenda item

To consider an application for a premises licence review brought by Trading Standards as a Responsible Authority. 

Daliah Barrett, Licensing Officer, introduced the application for a review of the Premises Licence as requested by Trading Standards on the grounds of public safety and crime and disorder.  The licence had been granted in November 2015, and the licence holder had been the designated premises supervisor since this time.  The Licence Holder had received a caution by Trading Standards in December 2015, and conditions had been added to the licence.

Rebecca Whitehouse, Trading Standards Manager, presented the application for a review of the Premises Licence, and provided a background to the premises.  In September 2014, the Licence Holder, Ozkan Albay, joined the Responsible Retailers Scheme.  In June 2015, Trading Standards and HMRC discovered illicit tobacco at the premises.  Mr Albay received a simple caution, as it was a first offence.  A further visit found further illicit tobacco, and Trading Standards felt that this warranted a review of the licence. 

David Caxton, Premises Licence Holder’s representative, responded to the review application.  The current licence had been in place since November 2015, and Mr Albay had been a licence holder for 17 years, with only two incidents occurring during this time.  The first incident had occurred as a result of Mr Albay’s brother bringing in illicit tobacco into the premises without Mr Albay’s knowledge, although Mr Albay took responsibility and the caution.  The second incident occurred as a result of Mr Albay allowing a customer to pay off a £200 debt with cigarettes.

In response to the Chair, Mr Caxton stated that it would not be fair to focus on the time since the premises licence had been granted in November 2015, as Mr Albay had held a premises licence for many years before then, with no incidents. 

In response to questions from the Committee, Mr Albay advised that he had signed up to the Responsible Retailers scheme as he had been asked to by Haringey Council, and he did not completely understand what it was, as he thought it was a reward scheme.  His premises licence training had taken place 16 years ago, in English.  Ms Barrett explained that the licence would have been granted in a Magistrates Court, and grandfathered over when the legislation changed, but the law would have remained the same with regard to illicit sales.

Mr Caxton summarised the case and reminded the Committee that there had been no previous offences by Mr Albay in the whole time he had held a licence, and referred to the guidance which said that the Committee should consider revocation, rather than that they should revoke the licence.

The Committee adjourned to consider their decision.

RESOLVED

The Committee carefully considered the application for a review of the premises licence, the representations of Trading Standards and the licence holder, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the s182 guidance.

The Committee resolved to:

·                Modify the conditions of the licence to incorporate the recommendations in the Trading Standards representation set out on page 23, point 1 of the Committee agenda pack.

·                To suspend the license for a period of 1 month.

·                To require  the DPS to undergo DPS training in his first language before the end of the period of suspension. 

The Committee had careful regard to the fact that criminal activity had taken place at the premises of a type which the guidance advises should be treated particularly seriously and noted that the licence holder had been guilty of this offence  in 2015 for which a caution was administered and that the conditions of the license had been modified to address the sale of illicit tobacco.  The Committee noted that on the second inspection in April 2016 there was no doubt that the illicit tobacco was on the premises and going to be sold and that the modified conditions had been breached.

The Committee considered that having committed this offence in the past the license holder would have been in no doubt that the sale of illicit tobacco was an offence and that such an offence would have put his license at risk. It concluded that there was a clear and deliberate failure by the license holder to uphold and promote the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety.

The Committee was not satisfied that the License Holder fully understood his responsibilities as DPS and considered whether he should be removed as the DPS.  It decided that he should be given the opportunity to refresh the training  that he had received 16 years ago and that this training should be in his first language. 

The Committee considered revoking or suspending the license and  recognised that a suspension of the licence could have a serious financial impact on the licence holder’s business.  The Committee considered that it would be appropriate and proportionate to suspend the licence for 1 month because there had been repetition of the same offence within a 10 month period, the welfare of the wider community had been put at risk in terms of the potential harm caused by such tobacco and the suspension was therefore in their interests.  Given that this was the second offence and notwithstanding the relatively low value of the tobacco found at the premises, suspension was considered as a proportionate step to act as a deterrent to the license holder to prevent the future use of the premises for criminal activity. 

Informative

The Committee decided that it would afford the licence holder a further opportunity to demonstrate that he would comply fully with the law and his obligations as a licence holder but wanted the licence holder to be aware that should this matter come before the Committee again, it would take a dim view of any repetition of the activities highlighted in this review.