The Hounslow Council Licensing Panel met on 27 October 2025, and appointed Councillor Farhaan Rehman as Chair of the meeting. The panel then moved to a review of the premises licence for The Local, and decided to revoke the licence.

The Local, 1 The Broadway, Gunnersbury Lane, Acton, W3 8HR

The panel decided to revoke the premises licence for The Local, a bar located at 1 The Broadway, Gunnersbury Lane, Acton, W3 8HR, following an application for review by the Home Office Immigration Enforcement Licensing Compliance Team (IELCT).

The Home Office applied for a review of the premises licence under Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003, because 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.

According to the Public Reports Pack, on 8 February 2025, officers from the Home Office Immigration Enforcement Licensing Compliance Team visited The Local and encountered two workers who were identified as immigration offenders. Both workers confirmed that they were paid in cash by the licence holder.

The Home Office advised that they had issued a civil penalty of £80,000 to S.Mart (Broadway) Limited on 26 March 2025 for employing two individuals with no right to work.

The applicant stated that illegal working risked lives by encouraging illegal migration, and that the use of illegal workers undermined legitimate businesses.

The Licensing Panel considered that there had been a breach of the licensing objectives, namely the prevention of crime and disorder. They stated that the use of illegal workers and possible exploitation in being underpaid against the national minimum wage was a clear breach of the licensing objective.

The licence holder, Mr Sait Saitoglu, and his licensing agent, Mr Panchal, disputed the Home Office's version of events. They submitted email correspondence with a third-party debt company to show that they had been negotiating a monthly payment plan for the civil penalty since June 2025. Mr Panchal said that the licence holder had taken action since the visit, and had undertaken a training course for ‘licensed premises’ and implemented right-to-work checks and a register.

Mr Panchal recognised that the marriage certificate provided by one of the workers 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. 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.

The panel considered the options available to it, including adding conditions to the licence alongside a possible three-month suspension, but determined that the licence should be revoked.

The panel noted that paragraph 2.6 of the S182 Statutory Guidance 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 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.

The panel referred to paragraph 11.27 of the Statutory Guidance, which states that there is certain criminal activity that may arise in connection with licensed premises which should be treated particularly seriously, including ‘employing a person who is disqualified from that work by reason of their immigration status in the UK.’

The panel also considered paragraph 11.28 of the Statutory Guidance, which states that ‘it is expected that revocation of the licence – even in the first instance – should be seriously considered.’

The panel did not find that the representations or evidence provided by the Licence Holder fully supported the Licence Holder’s claims.

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.

The panel stated 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.

The Licensing Panel therefore decided to revoke the premises licence.

Any party aggrieved with the decision may appeal to the local Magistrate’s Court within 21 days of notification of the decision.

Appointment of Chair

Councillor Farhaan Rehman was appointed Chair of the Licensing Panel.