Content

In reaching its decision, the Licensing Sub-Committee
(“LSC”) considered the Council’s Statement of
Licensing Policy, the Licensing Act 2003, the Regulations made
thereunder, and the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under
S.182 of that Act. In discharging its functions, the LSC did so
with a view to promoting the licensing objectives of the prevention
of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public
nuisance, and the protection of children from harm.
 
Having considered all written representations, evidence,
and oral submissions, the LSC resolved that the premises license be
revoked.
 
Basis of Decision
 
The Premises License holder (“the license
holder”), Mr Jitendra Patel, attended the hearing with
Designated Premises Supervisor (“the DPS”), Mr
Hiteshkumar Patel.
 
The license holder submitted that the sale of a nicotine
vape to a minor on 20th August 2024 was a one-off
mistake that had not previously happened as he takes care running
the business. The license holder stated that on the day of the
failed test purchase, the premises was busy, and no further
mistakes had occurred since as he has implemented staff training.
The License holder explained that staff had attended courses
regarding Challenge 25, and he had instructed staff to ask for
identification from anyone under the age of 25, not just 18. The
license holder further stated that when the staff do ask for
identification and refuse sales to minors, some of the minors throw
bottles at the staff and harass them. As regards the refusal log,
the license holder admitted that he previously could not find the
paper refusals log and believed a new one was not required as there
was an electronic refusals log in place.
 
The DPS stated that the premises had passed other
test-purchases since the failed test- purchase on 20th
August 2024. The DPS submitted that since the test purchase, strong
robust measures had been implemented to avoid future issues
including all staff receiving professional training regarding
Challenge 25. Additionally, the DPS stated that the business
intended to apply for all members of staff to have personal
licenses.
 
The License holder confirmed that he was present at the
premises once or twice a week, whilst the DPS confirmed he was
present twice a week.
 
The LSC received submissions from public health stating
their support of the premises license being revoked due to the
numerous breaches of the premises license conditions.
 
The LSC also received submissions from the l police that
there had been incidents over the last year involving anti-social
behaviour in the local area. Moreover, that local drug dealers
intimidate staff at the shops in the area, which has resulted in
drug sales occurring at the premises. Additionally, street drinking
in the local area had increased, as well as gang presence, drug
use, and occasional robbery. The police officer noted that this
activity was linked to the area generally and may not completely be
because of the failings at the premises. However, the police
submitted that the premises required tighter procedures and
controls to prevent unlawful sales.
 
The LSC were satisfied that the conditions attached to the
premises license were being breached, namely regular sales of
alcohol before permitted hours and the failure of the DPS to check
the refusals log, and that the premises had made at least one sale
of an age-restricted product to a minor. The LSC stated they were
not satisfied that the license holder and the DPS were adequately
managing and controlling the day-to-day running of the premises,
particularly in relation to the sales of alcohol and nicotine
vapes. The LSC determined that the license holder and the DPS
appeared to be managing the premises from a distance, which left
the staff vulnerable to pressure to make sales which were in breach
of the conditions and that were unlawful. The LSC also expressed
substantial concern regarding the extent of the unauthorised
alcohol sales, namely 380 unauthorised sales over an
approximate10-week period, and the lack of oversight the license
holder and the DPS had of the refusals log.
 
The LSC noted that these failings presented significant
risk to the protection of children from harm, especially due to the
number of primary and secondary schools in the local area and the
lack of safeguards in the premises to protect minors who try to
take advantage of staff to make age-restricted sales. Additionally,
the LSC stated whilst only one sale of a nicotine vape to a minor
was uncovered, the frequency of alcohol sales before permitted
hours may act as a proxy for additional undetected sales of
age-restricted products to minors. Further, the LSC noted the lack
of effort of the license holder and DPS as regards the refusals log
as creating further risk.
 
The LSC were concerned that the breaches of the premises
licence presented risk to both public safety and adversely impacted
the prevention of crime and disorder.
 
In reaching its decision the LSC disregarded any commercial
considerations relating to the viability of the
premises.

The LSC resolved that the premises license be revoked. Any
party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the
magistrates’ court within 21 days.