Decision Maker:

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: February 5, 2025

Purpose:

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.