Content

Notification of decision following a Licensing
Sub-Committee hearing to determine a review application for a
premises licence submitted under Section 51 of the Licensing Act
2003
 
PREMISES:    The Local, 1 The Broadway, Gunnersbury Lane,
Acton, W3 8HR (“the
Premises”)
 
APPLICANT:  Home Office Immigration
Enforcement Licensing Compliance Team (IELCT)
  
TAKE NOTICE
THATON 27 October 2025, following
a hearing before the Licensing and General Purposes Sub-Committee
(the “Licensing Panel” or
“Panel”),
 
HOUNSLOW COUNCIL,
as the Licensing Authority for the Premises
RESOLVED that:
 
the licence for the Premises is
REVOKED as explained below.
 
REASONS:
 

1)          
The Licensing Panel convened in person on 27 October
2025 to determine an application for review of the premises licence
for The Local, 1 The Broadway, Gunnersbury Lane,
Acton, W3 8HR (“the Premises”)
made under section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003. 
 

2)          
The Licensing Panel carefully considered all the
relevant information, including:

·       
Written and oral representations made by all the
parties

·       
The Licensing Act 2003 and the steps appropriate to
promote the Licensing Objectives

·       
The guidance issued under section 182 of the
Licensing Act 2003 (“the Statutory
Guidance”)

·       
Hounslow Council’s Statement Licensing Policy
2020-2025 (“the Council’s
Policy”)

·       
The Human Rights Act 1998
 

3)    
It was noted by the Panel that on the date of the
hearing, the Council’s new updated Licensing Policy took
effect, however it was understood that new applications received as
of this date would be considered under the new policy, with any
current applications (as in this instance) continuing to be
considered under the Council’s Policy.
 

4)    
The application, which was shown as Appendix A to the
Agenda was made by Home Office Immigration Enforcement Licensing
Compliance Team (IELCT) (“theApplicant” or the “Home
Office”),
being a responsible authority under section 8.7 of the Statutory
Guidance who had applied for a review of the premises licence on
the basis that the licence holder had failed to meet the licensing
objective of the prevention of crime and disorder as illegal
working had been identified at the Premises. The existing Licence
was shown at Appendix B (Premises licence number is H00270) and
allowed for the following Licensable activities:
 
·       
Supply of alcohol (on and off supply):
On weekdays, other than Christmas Day, Good
Friday or New Year’s Eve, 11 a.m. to 11
p.m.
On Sundays, other than Christmas Day or New
Year’s Eve, 12 noon to 10.30 p.m.
On Christmas Day, 12 noon to 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. to
10.30 p.m.
On Good Friday, 12 noon to 10.30
p.m.
On New Year’s Eve, from the end of
permitted hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of the
permitted hours on the following day
 
·       
The opening hours of the premises
On weekdays, other than Christmas Day, Good
Friday or New Year’s Eve, 11 a.m. to 11
p.m.
On Sundays, other than Christmas Day or New
Year’s Eve, 12 noon to 10.30 p.m.
On Good Friday, 12 noon to 10.30
p.m.
On Christmas Day, 12 noon to 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. to
10.30 p.m.
On New Year’s Eve, except on a Sunday, 11
a.m. to 11 p.m.
On New Year’s Eve on a Sunday, 12 noon to
10.30 p.m.
On New Year’s Eve from the end of permitted
hours on New Year’s Eve to the start of permitted hours on
the following day
 

5)          
During the consultation process no representations
were received. The Applicant was represented by two immigration
officers. The Licence Holder attended in person and was represented
by a licensing agent, Mr Panchal.
 

6)          
The Applicant explained that illegal working risked
lives by encouraging illegal migration and people to take risks in
entering the UK. The use of illegal workers meant that legitimate
business owners and legitimate workers were being undermined,
whilst others undercut rules. This further meant undermining the
licensing objectives under the prevention of crime and
disorder.
 

7)          
The Applicant further explained that they are an
intelligence led team acting on information received and do not
specifically target certain businesses. 
Referring to the visit, which was conducted, the Applicant
explained that they encountered two individuals working at the
Premises who had overstayed and that in questioning, both workers
stated they had been paid in cash, which the Applicant highlighted
would mean there was no tax paid. The Applicant stated that there
was a simple process for employers to conduct checks, which in this
instance, both illegal workers would have failed. The Applicant
highlighted that employers could face a civil penalty under such
circumstances and in this instance the business received a civil
penalty of £80,000. Following the civil penalty, the
Applicant emphasised that no objection to the civil penalty was
received, and the payment deadline for the civil penalty was missed
upon which it was referred to a third-party debt company, although
they noted that the Applicant had since agreed a monthly payment
agreement. The Applicant stated that they do not routinely seek a
review of a premises licence and only do so where they consider it
a heightened concern. On this basis the Applicant sought a
revocation of the licence referring to the Statutory Guidance at
11.27 and 11.28.
 

8)          
The Panel queried why the Applicant considered this
matter to be a ‘heightened concern’ in which a warning
following the civil penalty was not suitable. In response, the
Applicant explained in this instance there was a total of three
workers at the Premises, of which two were found to be illegal
workers, demonstrating 66% of the workforce to be illegal workers.
It was further added that whilst the application referred to the
non-compliance of the payment being a factor in seeking a review
and that payment of the civil penalty had since started, this did
not change their views in seeking a revocation on the basis that
the payment was said to only start when the application for review
was initiated and that ultimately, there were illegal workers at
the Premises who were underpaid and, without the visit to
intervene, this would have continued without anyone’s
knowledge. The Applicant added that one of the illegal workers had
overstayed since 2012 and that there was ample time for the Licence
Holder to carry out the appropriate checks as to their right to
work.
 

9)          
Mr Panchal and the Licence Holder disputed the
Applicant’s version of events and pointed to additional
documentation submitted in the form of email correspondence with
the third-party debt company that showed the Licence Holder / his
father (as his father is the director of the company) had been in
correspondence since June 2025, where they negotiated on a monthly
payment plan. Mr Panchal added that in his experience of dealing
with such matters, it was common to wait until the civil penalty
was passed on to the third party, where payment in full could not
be made, so appropriate negotiations for a payment plan could be
made. The Applicant considered that the Licence Holder ought to
have contacted the Home Office before it was referred to the
third-party debt company and that it was up to the receiver of the
civil penalty to contact the Home Office once the civil penalty had
been issued and before it was referred to the third party. Mr
Panchal on behalf of the Licence Holder stressed that contact had
been made within a reasonable time frame and it showed that the
Licence Holder was not hiding away from the matter. It was further
highlighted that the application for review was initiated on 9
September 2025, with the first payment being made on or around 27
September 2025, although it was noted that there was communication
regarding the negotiations of payment going back to June
2025.
 

10)      
In further submissions, Mr Panchal submitted that
the Licence Holder had taken action since the visit. He explained
that the Licence Holder is an architect who is educated,
understands the law, and runs another three premises on the same
Broadway where others are employed without issue. It was
highlighted that he had since undertaken a training course for
‘licensed premises’ as per the included certificates in
their submission. When questioned by the Panel as to why there was
no certificate submitted for the Licence Holder himself, it was
noted that the Licence Holder believed this to have been included
in the documents submitted by his Agent. In accordance with
regulation 16 of The Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations
2005, the additional certificate showing the Licence Holder had
undertaken the same course was admitted as further evidence with
the consent of all parties. Mr. Panchal explained that the Licence
Holder had implemented right-to-work checks and held a Right to
Work register.
 

11)      
Referencing the current instance of illegal workers,
he stated that the issue of one of the workers stemmed from
knowledge of the individual’s family, as he was known to be
married to a British woman. A copy of the marriage certificate,
which was held by the Licence Holder and included in their
submission, was said to be provided at the time of employment. Mr
Panchal recognised that the marriage certificate did not give an
automatic right to work, but stated the Licence Holder had the
impression that the individual was living in the country legally,
and whilst he had requested that the individual bring in ID
documents, these were not received. As to the other individual, it
was explained that this was someone who approached the Licence
Holder’s father requesting work as he had a
family.
 

12)      
Mr Panchal added that there had not been any issues
with the Licence Holder in respect of the licence, nor had any
other responsible authorities made representations as would usually
be the case if there were any issues. Whilst Mr Panchal
acknowledged the Statutory Guidance referred to by the Applicant,
he expressed that the Panel could depart from this and seek to
instead implement conditions to ensure right to work checks and a
register was implemented for the future. On this basis, Mr Panchal
asked that a shorter suspension of the Premises licence be
considered and referenced a similar case involving Wandsworth
Borough Council.
 

13)      
In response to questions from the Panel as to why
documents had not been requested from the workers, the Licence
Holder stressed that he had requested these. Referring to one of
the individuals, he relayed that at no point did it cross his mind
that he did not have a right to work, as the individual was a local
resident who was known to be married to the daughter of a local
businessman. As to the second individual, he had brought in his
expired visa, and so the Licence Holder had asked for the
up-to-date one to be provided, which the individual confirmed he
would arrange to bring, but did not do so. The Licence Holder was
also adamant that, although payments may have been made in cash, he
did pay the minimum wage to the workers and suggested that the
individuals were not being honest and would have felt under
pressure when questioned by the Home Office inspectors at the time
of the visit.
 

14)      
In questions posed about how the Licence Holder
operated, he confirmed that they had CCTV in place, operated a
challenge 25 policy, and held a logbook. Furthermore, he stated he
was now familiar with right-to-work checks and seeks copies of
passports and national insurance numbers for anyone being employed,
even if on a trial basis, as well as carrying out further checks on
anyone from abroad. The Licence holder confirmed he lived near to
the Premises and could be contacted by the premises in case of any
issues. He explained that the business and company were run by his
father, but as he was now elderly and unwell, he would be taking on
the running of the businesses. The Licence Holder acknowledged the
errors, apologised, and accepted responsibility as the Licence
Holder, even if his father had been naive in employing the illegal
workers.
 

15)      
In response to further questions, the Licence Holder
denied that if the visit had not taken place, the illegal working
would have continued, as he argued it would have come to light at
some point for him to address. The Applicant queried why the
Licence Holder did not challenge the civil penalty, to which the
Licence Holder responded to state he did not want to put his father
through the stress of dealing with it, given that he was the
director of the company, the civil penalty was issued against. The
Applicant suggested this differed from the Licence Holder’s
earlier suggestion that they had waited to hear from the Home
Office regarding the civil penalty, whereas they now appeared to
suggest they were aware of it and chose not to respond. The Licence
Holder refuted this, arguing they were always in communication with
the relevant third-party debt company. He stated that automatic
payments from his card had been set up and that initially, a few
weeks were missed due to issues with their payment system. The
Licence Holder accepted that there was some slow movement on their
behalf, but that he had answered concerns from the initial report
by the Home Office and had subsequently made contact following the
demand for the civil penalty. Mr Panchal underlined that the
Licence Holder was apologetic and not running away from the issues
identified, but instead ready to comply and deal with the
issues.
 
 

16)      
 The Panel considered the
Statutory Guidance which states:

“Crime and disorder

2.1        Licensing
authorities should look to the police as the main source of advice
on crime and disorder. They should also seek to involve the local
Community Safety Partnership (CSP).

 

…

 

2.6        The prevention of crime includes the prevention of
immigration crime including the prevention of illegal working in
licensed premises. Licensing authorities should work with Home
Office Immigration Enforcement, as well as the police, in respect
of these matters. Licence conditions that are considered
appropriate for the prevention of illegal working in licensed
premises might include requiring a premises licence holder to
undertake right to work checks on all staff employed at the
licensed premises or requiring that evidence of a right to work
check, either physical or digital (e.g. a copy of any document
checked as part of a right to work check or a clear copy of the
online right to work check) are retained at the licensed
premises..”

 

…
 

Home Office Immigration Enforcement
acting as a responsible authority

 

9.25     
The Immigration Act 2016 made the
Secretary of State a responsible authority in respect of premises
licensed to sell alcohol or late night refreshment with effect from
6 April 2017. In effect this conveys the role of responsible
authority to Home Office Immigration Enforcement who exercises the
powers on the Secretary of State’s behalf. When Immigration
Enforcement exercises its powers as a responsible authority it will
do so in respect of the prevention of crime and disorder licensing
objective because it is concerned with the prevention of illegal
working or immigration offences more broadly.

 

…

 

Powers of a licensing authority on the
determination of a review

 

11.16    The 2003 Act provides a range of powers for the
licensing authority which it may exercise on determining a review
where it considers them appropriate for the promotion of the
licensing objectives.

 

11.17    The licensing authority may decide that the review
does not require it to take any further steps appropriate to
promoting the licensing objectives. In addition, there is nothing
to prevent a licensing authority issuing an informal warning to the
licence holder and/or to recommend improvement within a particular
period of time. It is expected that licensing authorities will
regard such informal warnings as an important mechanism for
ensuring that the licensing objectives are effectively promoted and
that warnings should be issued in writing to the licence
holder.

 

11.18    However, where responsible
authorities such as the police or environmental health officers
have already issued warnings requiring improvement – either
orally or in writing – that have failed as part of their own
stepped approach to address concerns, licensing authorities should
not merely repeat that approach and should take this into account
when considering what further action is appropriate. Similarly,
licensing authorities may take into account any civil immigration
penalties which a licence holder has been required to pay for
employing an illegal worker.

 

11.19    Where the licensing authority considers that action
under its statutory powers is appropriate, it may take any of the
following steps:

• modify the conditions of the
premises licence (which includes adding new conditions or any
alteration or omission of an existing condition), for example, by
reducing the hours of opening or by requiring door supervisors at
particular times;

• exclude a licensable activity
from the scope of the licence, for example, to exclude the
performance of live music or playing of recorded music (where it is
not within the incidental live and recorded music
exemption)

• remove the designated premises
supervisor, for example, because they consider that the problems
are the result of poor management;

• suspend the licence for a period
not exceeding three months;

• revoke the licence

 

11.20    In deciding which of these powers to invoke, it is
expected that licensing authorities should so far as possible seek
to establish the cause or causes of the concerns that the
representations identify. The remedial action taken should
generally be directed at these causes and should always be no more
than an appropriate and proportionate response to address the
causes of concern that instigated the review.

 

11.21    For example, licensing authorities should be alive
to the possibility that the removal and replacement of the
designated premises supervisor may be sufficient to remedy a
problem where the cause of the identified problem directly relates
to poor management decisions made by that
individual.

 

11.22    Equally, it may emerge that poor management is a
direct reflection of poor company practice or policy and the mere
removal of the designated premises supervisor may be an inadequate
response to the problems presented. Indeed, where subsequent review
hearings are generated, it should be rare merely to remove a
succession of designated premises supervisors as this would be a
clear indication of deeper problems that impact upon the licensing
objectives.

 

11.23    Licensing authorities
should also note that modifications of conditions and exclusions of
licensable activities may be imposed either permanently or for a
temporary period of up to three months. Temporary changes or
suspension of the licence for up to three months could impact on
the business holding the licence financially and would only be
expected to be pursued as an appropriate means of promoting the
licensing objectives or preventing illegal working. So, for
instance, a licence could be suspended for a weekend as a means of
deterring the holder from allowing the problems that gave rise to
the review to happen again. However, it will always be important
that any detrimental financial impact that may result from a
licensing authority’s decision is appropriate and
proportionate to the promotion of the licensing objectives and for
the prevention of illegal working in licensed premises. But where
premises are found to be trading irresponsibly, the licensing
authority should not hesitate, where appropriate to do so, to take
tough action to tackle the problems at the premises and, where
other measures are deemed insufficient, to revoke the licence.

 

Reviews arising in connection with
crime

11.24   
A number of reviews may arise in
connection with crime that is not directly connected with
licensable activities. For example, reviews may arise because of
drugs problems at the premises, money laundering by criminal gangs,
the sale of contraband or stolen goods, the sale of firearms, or
the sexual exploitation of children. Licensing authorities do not
have the power to judge the criminality or otherwise of any issue.
This is a matter for the courts. The licensing authority’s
role when determining such a review is not therefore to establish
the guilt or innocence of any individual but to ensure the
promotion of the crime prevention objective.

 

11.25    Reviews are part of the regulatory process
introduced by the 2003 Act and they are not part of criminal law
and procedure. There is, therefore, no reason why representations
giving rise to a review of a premises licence need be delayed
pending the outcome of any criminal proceedings. Some reviews will
arise after the conviction in the criminal courts of certain
individuals, but not all. In any case, it is for the licensing
authority to determine whether the problems associated with the
alleged crimes are taking place on the premises and affecting the
promotion of the licensing objectives. Where a review follows a
conviction, it would also not be for the licensing authority to
attempt to go beyond any finding by the courts, which should be
treated as a matter of undisputed evidence before
them.

 

11.26    Where the licensing authority is conducting a
review on the grounds that the premises have been used for criminal
purposes, its role is solely to determine what steps should be
taken in connection with the premises licence, for the promotion of
the crime prevention objective. It is important to recognise that
certain criminal activity or associated problems may be taking
place or have taken place despite the best efforts of the licence
holder and the staff working at the premises and despite full
compliance with the conditions attached to the licence. In such
circumstances, the licensing authority is still empowered to take
any appropriate steps to remedy the problems. The licensing
authority’s duty is to take steps with a view to the
promotion of the licensing objectives and the prevention of illegal
working in the interests of the wider community and not those of
the individual licence holder

 

11.27    There is certain criminal
activity that may arise in connection with licensed premises which
should be treated particularly seriously. These are the use of the
licensed premises:

• for the sale and distribution of drugs controlled under the
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the laundering of the proceeds of
drugs crime;

• for the sale and distribution of illegal firearms;

• for the evasion of copyright in respect of pirated or
unlicensed films and music, which does considerable damage to the
industries affected;

• for the illegal purchase and consumption of alcohol by
minors which impacts on the health, educational attainment,
employment prospects and propensity for crime of young people;
• for prostitution or the sale of unlawful pornography; •
by organised groups of paedophiles to groom children;

• as the base for the organisation of criminal activity,
particularly by gangs;

• for the organisation of racist activity or the promotion of
racist attacks;

• for employing a person who is disqualified from that work by
reason of their immigration status in the UK;

• for unlawful gambling; and

• for the sale or storage of smuggled tobacco and alcohol.

 

11.28    It is envisaged that
licensing authorities, the police, the Home Office (Immigration
Enforcement) and other law enforcement agencies, which are
responsible authorities, will use the review procedures effectively
to deter such activities and crime. Where reviews arise and the
licensing authority determines that the crime prevention objective
is being undermined through the premises being used to further
crimes, it is expected that revocation of the licence – even
in the first instance – should be seriously considered.
 

17)      
The Council’s Policy states the
following:
 
“54.
Each of the four licensing objectives are of equal importance and
therefore each needs to be considered with equal weight.
 
55. The
Council expects applicants to risk assess their proposals and put
forward measures aimed at promoting the licensing
objectives.
 
LP2 The
Four Licensing Objectives
 
1.
Prevention of Crime and Disorder
Whether the
proposal includes satisfactory measures to mitigate any risk of the
proposed operation making an unacceptable contribution to levels of
crime and disorder in the locality.
 
2. Public
Safety
Whether the
necessary and satisfactory risk assessments have been undertaken,
the management procedures put in place and the relevant
certification produced to demonstrate that the public will be kept
safe both within and in close proximity to the premises.
 
3.
Prevention of Public Nuisance
Whether the
applicant has addressed the potential for nuisance arising from the
characteristics and style of the proposed activity and identified
the appropriate steps to reduce the risk of public nuisance
occurring.
 
4.
Protection of Children form Harm
Whether the
applicant has identified and addressed any risks with the aim of
protecting children from harm when on the premises or in close
proximity to the premises.”
 
 

18)      
The Council’s Policy at paragraph 115
states:
“The
Licensing Authority can exercise a range of powers when dealing
with a review (see S.182 guidance notes). In cases where the crime
prevention objective is being seriously undermined it is expected
that revocation of the premises licence, even in the first
instance, will be seriously considered.”
 
The
Panel also noted that this paragraph, in any case, remained a
consideration in the Council's updated Licensing Policy.
 
Decision
 

19)      
The Panel considered the options available to it, including adding
the conditions proposed by the Licence Holder alongside a possible
3-month suspension. However, the Panel determined that whilst the
conditions would be beneficial to the Licence, they were conditions
otherwise expected to be complied with by a responsible Licence
Holder or anyone employing staff in a business capacity,
irrespective of whether specified on the licence or not. The Panel
also considered that removal of the Designated Premises Supervisor
would not be sufficient in accordance with paragraphs 11.20 to
11.22 of the Statutory Guidance, given that it was evident the
Licence Holder was involved in employing or managing staff as well
as other aspects of the business.
 

20)      
With regards to the Statutory Guidance, the Panel noted that
paragraph 2.6 was clearly a preventive measure designed to prevent
such instances of breach of crime and disorder, whilst in this
instance the Licence Holder was found to have already breached
this. The suggestion of more robust procedures being in place for
checks was clearly insufficient and ought to have been in place
from the outset. The Panel noted that ultimately, it was for a
licence holder to ensure they were operating in compliance with
their licence and to propose measures to promote the licensing
objectives and tackle any issues.
 

21)      
Considering paragraph 11.27 of the Statutory Guidance,
“there is certain criminal activity that may arise in
connection with licensed premises which should be treated
particularly seriously.” This includes
‘employing a person who is
disqualified from that work by reason of their immigration status
in the UK.’ Further
considering 11.28 of the Statutory Guidance, the Panel notes that
‘it is expected that revocation of the licence –
even in the first instance – should be seriously
considered.’
 

22)      
Whilst the Panel was conscious that criminal
liability was a determination outside of the scope of the Licensing
Hearing, they did not find that the representations or evidence
provided by the Licence Holder fully supported the Licence
Holder’s claims.
 

23)      
Although the receipt of the marriage certificate as
the only form of ID should have raised further queries, it was
evident to the Panel that even if the Licence Holder had been
misled by one of the illegal workers, there was no valid
explanation as to why sufficient checks were not carried out on the
second worker particularly as an expired visa was said to have been
seen. Moreover, there was no explanation as to why the workers were
paid in cash or evidence that they had been paid the minimum wage,
despite the Licence Holder’s suggestion of the same. The
Application also showed a discrepancy as to whether the Licence
Holder was aware that they did not have the right to work and
whether right to work documents were requested. Ultimately, the
Licence Holder is responsible for upholding the licensing
objectives, and in this instance, these had not been met. Given
that the Licence Holder was also said to own another three
businesses which employed staff, he ought to have known the
procedures and checks that are required, particularly as the
business was said to be operational for a number of
years.
 

24)      
The Panel acknowledged that a civil penalty had
already been issued, for which the Licence Holder had a payment
plan in place. Accordingly, the Panel was understanding of the
Licence Holder’s possible financial position and the
potential effect the revocation of the licence may bring, but did
not think this excused him from breaching the licensing objectives
by employing and potentially exploiting illegal workers. The
Statutory Guidance considers this a serious breach and, in
accordance with the Council’s Policy, a revocation even in
the first instance – should be seriously
considered.
 

25)      
Paragraph 11.20 of the Statutory Guidance states
“The remedial action taken should generally be directed at
these causes and should always be no more than an appropriate and
proportionate response to address the causes of concern that
instigated the review.”
 

26)      
Having taken all submissions and representations
into account along with the Statutory Guidance and the
Council’s Licensing Policy, the Panel considered that there
had been a significant breach and undermining of the licensing
objectives, namely the prevention of crime and disorder. The use of
illegal workers and possible exploitation in being underpaid
against the National minimum wage was a clear breach of the
licensing objective, and there was a clear requirement to ensure
promotion of the licensing objectives.
 

27)      
The Panel therefore decided that revoking the
licence was the appropriate and proportionate remedy in the
circumstances, as a breach of the prevention of crime and disorder
objective was clear.
 

28)      
The Licensing Panel has therefore decided to
REVOKE the premises licence.
 
Right to Appeal
 

29)      
Any party aggrieved with the
decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee on one or more grounds
set out in Schedule 5 of Licensing Act 2003 may appeal to the
local Magistrate’s Court within 21 days of notification of
this decision.