Decision Maker: Licensing Panel

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: October 27, 2025

Purpose:

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.