Agenda item

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

RECEIVED the application for the review of Costcutter Premises License – 824-828 High Road, London N13 as detailed on pages 3 to 31of the agenda pack.

 

a.         Licensing Officer’s Introduction

 

The Licensing Team Leader, Daliah Barrett, introduced the application for a review of the Costcutter Premises License, referring to the documents contained in the agenda pack.

 

NOTED that the application for review of the premise license was brought by the Licensing Authority; under Sections 51 and 87 of the Licensing Act 2003. The application for review had been made on the grounds that the premises had failed to uphold the licensing conditions and the objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety. NOTED that the review had been brought against the above named premises for storage and selling of both non-duty paid tobacco and non-duty paid alcohol. In addition, the tobacco did not have the correct statutory health warnings required for the UK market. There was also evidence of alcohol being sold below minimum unit pricing level. Mr Patel was also subject to legal proceedings brought by HMRC.

 

 

b.         Representations from Rebecca Whitehouse, Environmental Health (Commercial) Trading Standards Manager

 

NOTED the representation by Rebecca Whitehouse on behalf of Haringey Trading Standards, including that: On the 14th October 2015 officers of the Trading Standards service and HMRC carried out an inspection of the licensed premises and Mr Patel informed Trading Standards that he was the Premises Licence Holder.  During the inspection 4220 cigarettes were seized together with 385.03 litres of spirits, which represented a duty loss of £5422.35.

 

After the visit the licence of the premises was examined and it became apparent that Mr Amit Patel was not the Premises Licence Holder as he had stated and the matter was referred by Trading Standards to the Licensing team. On 20^th October 2015 after an intervention by Licensing officers the Premises Licence was transferred to Anit Patel. The explanation given by Mr Patel was that the Premises Licence was still in the name of the company which managed the business previously and that the failure to transfer the licence over was an oversight by ‘head office’ when the shop had been taken over. On 3^rd December 2015, Mr Patel was interviewed under caution and confirmed that the stock was his and that he ran the shop side of the business while his wife ran the post office. Mr Patel stated that the cigarettes were his and that he was using them as a promotional tool giving them away to customers. On 1^st July 2016, an inspection of Mr Patel’s shop was undertaken and one line of polish beer was found to be priced below minimum pricing levels.

 

The Trading Standards Manager advised the sub-Committee that Mr Patel had failed to sign up to the responsible retailer scheme when provided with information in both August 2014 and August 2015. Following the pursuit of legal proceedings, Mr Patel signed up to the responsible retailer scheme on 27^th July 2016.

 

The Committee asked for clarification whether the responsible licensing scheme involved training on what was expected of a Premises Licence Holder.  Environmental Health (Commercial) Trading Standards Manager responded that there was no formal training as such but that the licence holder was supplied with a significant amount of information when they signed up and that the local authority carried out significant engagement with the retailer on how to behave responsibly. The licence holder was also required to sign a statement verifying that they will comply will the relevant regulatory requirements.   

 

Mr Patel asked whether in terms of the alcohol, the review was brought against him as a result of the items of Glen’s vodka. The Committee confirmed that was the case

 

 

c.         Applicant’s response to the representations

 

NOTED the representation by the applicant, including that:

 

He had working in the industry all his life and was well aware of his role and responsibilities. Furthermore, this was an isolated incident. Mr Patel informed the Committee that he already used a UV light to check for counterfeit products. In relation to the non-duty paid alcohol, Mr Patel stated that the vodka was found to be genuine and it was the labels that were not genuine. Mr Patel also advised that he sold a very limited number of the bottles of Glens vodka and had likely had the stock for a long time; consequently he could not recall where he had purchased them. Mr Patel commented that in relation to this review he was also being prosecuted by HMRC for the non-duty paid alcohol.

 

In relation to the illicit tobacco found, Mr Patel reasserted that he was not selling the cigarettes, instead they were part of a promotion around polish food and he was giving them away to customers when they spent over a certain amount. Mr Patel advised the committee that follow up visits by HMRC had found no further incidents of storing non-duty paid goods and a follow up visit by Trading Standards Officers had only found one line of polish beer that was being sold for £1 instead of £1.10 as per minimum pricing levels. The majority of the other items found, including bottles of bitters, were left behind by a previous owner of the store.

 

Mr Patel informed the Committee that he had already paid £500 in duty to HMRC and stated that he had a letter from HMRC confirming this. The applicant advised that he knew other retailers that had been found to be selling non-duty paid goods and had not been through a similar process; as a result he felt victimised.

 

The Committee sought clarification on nature of the promotion that the applicant described and raised concerns that the cigarettes were found in two separate locations; behind the counter and in the storeroom. The Committee also asked the applicant why he had failed to sign up to the responsible retailer scheme until the onset of legal proceedings. The applicant responded that this was a genuine oversight and that he had been pre-occupied with caring for his terminally ill father for the past 18 months.

 

The Committee asked the applicant where he purchased the vodka from and suggested that 385.3 litres amounted to around thirty cases, which was a significant quantity to be found storing. Mr Patel disputed this amount and suggested that there was only 22 bottles found. Mr Patel informed the Committee that he purchased all of his alcohol from four different retailers and clarified that he was unable to locate the invoices for these items. The applicant confirmed that he thought that the duty had been paid on all the alcohol found.

 

The Committee was advised by the Environmental Health (Commercial) Trading Standards Manager, that the UV light that Mr Patel was using appeared to be designed for checking bank notes and was unsuitable as it was not big enough to use on a bottle of vodka. The Committee considered that the amount of non-duty paid goods found would likely suggest that these items were available for sale. The Committee was advised that the offence related to the storage of non-duty paid goods and that the claim that the applicant was not selling them was irrelevant in that context.

 

20:15 the Committee retired to make decision. Returned 20:35hrs

 

DECISION

 

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 Revised Home Office Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003.

The Committee RESOLVED to modify the conditions on the licence to incorporate recommendations 1-10 of the report from the Responsible Authority for Trading Standards, as set out in page 23-24 of the agenda pack. These conditions were:

1. The Premises Licence Holder and Designated Premises Licence Holder shall ensure that alcohol is only purchased from an authorised wholesaler and shall produce receipts for the same upon request for inspection. (An authorised wholesaler means an established warehouse or trade outlet with a fixed address and not a van or street, even if they claim they are part of, or acting on behalf of, an authorised wholesaler who provides full itemised VAT receipts).

 

2. The Premises Licence Holder and Designated Premises Supervisor shall ensure persons responsible for purchasing alcohol do not take part in any stock swaps or lend or borrow any alcohol goods from any other sources  unless the source is another venue owned and operated by the same company who also purchases their stock from an authorised wholesaler.

 

3. The Premises Licence Holder shall ensure all receipts for alcohol goods purchased include the following details:

                         i.        Seller’s name and address

                        ii.        Seller’s company details, if applicable

                       iii.        Sellers’s VAT detail, if applicable

                       iv.        Vehicle registration details, if applicable

 

4. Legible copies of the documents referred to in Condition 3 above shall be retained on the premises and made available for inspection by Police and Authorised Council Officers on request.

 

5. Copies of the documents referred to in condition 3 above shall be retained on the premises for a period of not less than 12 months.

 

6. An ultra violet light shall be purchased and used at the store to check the authenticity of all stock purchased which bears a UK Duty Paid stamp.

 

7. Where the trader becomes aware that any alcohol may not be duty paid they shall inform the Council of this immediately.

 

8. All tobacco products which are not on the covered tobacco display cabinet shall be stored in a container clearly marked ‘tobacco stock’. This container shall be kept within the store room or behind the sales counter.

 

9. Tobacco shall only be taken from the covered tobacco display cabinet behind the sales counter in order to make a sale.

 

10. Only products available for retail sale can be stored at the licensed premises.

 

The Committee took this decision because on the evidence before the Committee it was clear that activity had taken place which was inconsistent with the licensing objectives, in particular, the prevention of crime and disorder and the promotion of public safety. 

The committee was satisfied that the activity which had resulted in the review application, was of a type which the guidance advises should be treated with particular seriousness. The Committee was satisfied that illicit tobacco was on the premises in quantities which would suggest that it was to be offered for sale rather than for purely promotional purposes.

The Committee concluded that there was a clear failure on the part of the Licence Holder to uphold and promote the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and the promotion of public safety and had acted in a manner that was inconsistent with local licensing practice.

In view of the seriousness of the matter, The Committee considered suspending the licence but felt that it would not be proportionate to do so in the circumstances.  The licence holder was therefore being given an opportunity to show that in future he would comply with his licence terms and conditions.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

Informative

 

While the Committee has decided that it would give the licence holder a further chance to show that he would comply fully with the law and his obligations as a licence holder, the Committee wished to warn the licence holder that any repeat of these activities would not be viewed favourably. The licence holder is therefore put on notice that he is required to adhere fully to the licensing conditions at all times. The Committee approached its enquires with an open mind and only made its decision after having heard from all parties.

 

The times the Licence authorises the carrying out licensable activities:

 

Supply of Alcohol

 

Monday to Sunday  0700 to 0000 hrs

 

For consumption OFF the premises only.

 

The opening hours of the premises:

 

Monday to Sunday 0700 to 0000 hrs