Minutes:
Introduction by Licensing Officer:
Steven Dormer, Licensing Officer at London Borough of Hillingdon introduced the report, photographs and addendum relating to a review of the premises licence for Ocean Superstore, 153 North Hyde Road, UB3 4NS. He provided a background and chronology of events.
Mr Dormer confirmed that Hillingdon Trading Standards and Licensing Services had carried out a compliance visit on 10 October 2017. On the visit officers seized a number of non duty paid and counterfeit tobacco products and medicinal products. The licence holder, Mr Sachdeva, was not there at the time but Mr Bhajan Singh Kapoor was there and present serving customers in the store.
Mr Dormer confirmed that Mr Sachdeva had been in management of the premises since January 2017 but became the licence holder in October 2017. He originally applied for a transfer of a premisis licence and variation of DPS in May 2017 but had not completed the forms properpyl. There were a number of attempts to assist with Mr Sachdeva making the correct application.
On Tuesday 30 January 2018 a further licensing compliance visit was carried out. The premises layout had altered from the current lay out plan, the rear fire exit was blocked with stock offered for sale in the shop and concerns were raised with licence holder that alcohol was stocked in blind spots away from the till point. A new refusals register had been implemented.
Mr Dormer submitted that the initial application to review the licence was made on the basis that the Crime and Disorder objective of the Licensing Act 2003 had been breach. However he submitted, that in light of representations received by other responsible authorities, furthers breaches of licensing objectives including public health and children being at risk of illicit products.
Mr Dormer made a recommendation that the licence should be revoked, having regard to paragraphs 11.19 and 11.27 of the government issued under s 82 of the Licensing Act 2003.
Mr Dormer explained that when the licence was initial applied for the plan layout in the report was different to the plan initially granted. The store room, post office, kitchen and staff room, and WC had been removed. No variation of the premises licence had been applied for. In response to a Member question, Mr Dormer confirmed that he was unable to confirm whether the post office identified the plan had ever been built.
Representation by Applicant for the review:
KiranSeyan, Trading Standards address the Committee. Ms Seyan, on behalf of Trading Standard had applied for the review of a premises licence under s 52 Of the Licensing Act 2003. The application was submitted in breach of the licensing objective - the prevention of crime and disorder.
Ms Seyan provided a chronology of events. Acting on intelligence received, officers from Trading Standards Service and Licensing, accompanied by brand representatives and tobacco detection dogs conducted an inspection of Ocean Superstore on 10 October 2017. As Mr Sachdeva was not in the shop, Ms Seyan spoke to him over the telephone explaining the reason for visits and asked if he had any illicit goods on site. Mr Sachdeva told Ms Seyan that his alcohol was legal but he had some illegal tobacco on site.
An inspection of the premises was conducted and concealed tobacco was found behind the counter and at the rear of the shop floor. Illicit tobacco products and medicines were found concealed on the premises which were seized by trading standards. A number of products were seized, which are detailed in the report.
Ms Seyan confirmed that the estimated value of the cigarettes and tobacco had a street selling price of £6000. She was unable to give value of the snuff.
Ms Seyan confirmed that the medicinal products were handed over to Darren Warren, Investigator for the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). She referred the Committee to the statement from Mr Warren dated 18 December 2017. In His statement Mr Warren described the medicinal products found and that Mr Sachdeva purchased the blister Tramadol packs for £2.20 and sold these for around £3.00. Ms Seyan explained tht on this basis the Tramadol value was approximately £585 as each blister pack contained eight tablets. She was unaware of the value of the other medicinal products.
On 9 February 2018, Mr Sachdeva attended an interview in which he answered no comment to all the questions.
Trading Standards made a recommendation that the licence to revoked.
Representation by Responsible Authorities (the Police)
PC Dave Butler and Emly Mitchell, Metropolitan Police addressed the Committee. They explained that they supported the representation made by Trading Standards and requested a revocation of the licence. The tobacco and medicinal products in conjunction with Tramdaol (a class C drug) raised public safety concerns. If Tramdal sold to members of the public, the consequcnes can be hallucinogenic. The illicit products could impact people's health particularly as they do not know what they are consuming.
Representation by Responsible Authorities (Hillingdon Licensing Team)
Stephanie Waterford and Jhini Mukerjee attended the Committee to answer any questions. Ms Waterford confirmed that the proposed conditions submitted by the licence holder's representative had been considered, but the Licensing team had some reservations about the capability for conform to conditions. They supported the recommendation for revocation.
In response to Member questions, Ms Waterford confirmed that a premise licence was issued to Mr Sachdeva on 5 October 2017, five days before the inspection visit was undertaken on 10 October 2017. During the period Jan 17 - October 2017 Mr Bhatia was the licence holder.
Representation by the Licence Holder
Mr Graham Hopkins, on behalf of Mr Sachdeva, submitted representations to the Sub Committee.
Mr Hopkins submitted that Mr Sachdeva was a new comer to the trade, joining the trade in January 2017. Prior to this he worked as a bus driver. Mr Sachdeva did not dispute the facts; he accepted all the quantities given.
Mr Hopkins informed the panel that Mr Sachdeva was deeply sorry and remoseful to everyone involved. He had brought his products from cold callers and accept act of stupidity. Her accepts that his actions fell short of the standards expects and it the first occasion on which this had happened. He submitted that all the alcohol in the premisis was legitimate.
Mr Hopkins addressed the concerns raised at the visit conduct on 30 January 2018 in wich stock was found ont he floor and fire exit blocked. He submitted that Mr Sachdeva was nt aware of the layout when he brought the shop but since last week a new layout had been drawn up. The landlord had built a store room on the rear and had extended the shop. New layout plans were provided to all Memebrs of the Committee and all parties and photos of the shop's current position. The new works were scheduled to be finished within the next three days. In summary, Mr Sachdeva confirmed that the stairs were no longer in the building, the building had been extended in length and the staff room had moved. The fire ext was clear at the back.
Mr Hopkins explained that the licence in place was an old licence and it was a matter for Mr Sachdeva to have CCTV camer and training manuals, as they were good practice, not conditions. As a result there had been no breaches. He put forward proposed conditions and reiterated that there had been no breaches of conditions. He accepted that Mr Sachdeva had been naive which was evidence by the fact that he could not complete the transfer forms.
Mr Hopkins explained Mr Sachdeva's personal circumstances that were not being used as mitigation, but to explain his current mindset. Mr Sacdeva was goignt hrough a stressful divorce, had long term depression, lost his home and paid most bills. Although he had access to this children has paying most bills. Mr Sachdeva did not have his mind on the responsibilities he had and asked for another chance. He already taken steps to remedy his actions. He ask th panel to consider imposing the conditions imposed or in te altherbative a six week suspension.
In response to questions from Members, Mr Hopkins confirmed that Mr Sachdeva could benefit from further training. Mr Sachdeva confirmed that he sold the snuff got £4, Razorwire Eneregy £1, Kamagra Oral Jelly £13 and Pfizer Viagra Sildenafil Citrate 50p a tablet. The licence holder confirmed that a man named Ali sold him the goods an due paid close to 5k for them and was told that he had a street selling value of £6k. Members also questioned the enforceability of the conditions particularly in relation to having only two children under 16 in the shop at certain times.
Discussion
During the Sub Licensing Committee's discussion, the following points were noted:
· Mr Sachdeva confirmed that he had no training when he took over the management of the premises in January 2017. He said that Mr Bhatia said that he would teach him everything he needed to know but for some reason this was delayed.
· Mr Sachdeva said that he only brought the products once from a man called Ali . This was his first experience and he spent approximately 5k. Ali advised Mr Sachdeva on how much he should eb selling products for.
· In response to a Member question whether he ought to have ask Mr Bhatia for advice, Mr Sachdeva explained that in January 2017 a lot of things were going on. He was under pressure, He explained that he would go to tCash and Carry and buy a bottle of Famous Grouse for £19 and sell at £20 only making £1 profit. Smaller shops had more interest and were making more money and he was interested in how this was being done. He said that he wanted o try this and this was the only time he tries it. He accepted that it was a foolish decision, but thought he could have made some more money.
· Mr Sachdeva confirmed he bought the prdocut from a polish guy with a van. He stopped came into the shop and he had the cash for the tiems as he would have gone to Cash and carry to buy stock and had it. He said that the man returned in November 2017 to offer more stock but he did not buy it.
· Mr Sachdeva confirmed he hardly sold any products and no one knew that he was selling these itmes.He only sold some cigarettes but no medicinal products. It was confirmed by Ms Seyan that the products were found in sealed packs.
· Mr Sachdeva did not have a receipt of the items that were purchased.
· In response to the question on how he intended to sell the products, Mr Sachdeva said that he did not think about this and only brought the products and confirmed that he would think about it afterwards. He didn’t even tell anyne that he had the products.
· Mr Sachdeva reiterated that he only purchased the products once - it was a one time deal. He said that other peop ein the area may know of him.
· Mr Sachdeva wa sunabel to explain why the person aing the complaint referred t o cigareetes being sold under the coutner. He ezplained that the person may have been miunerstood.
· During delivberations, it became apparent that Mr Sachdeva had been issued a person licence back in 2010. When asked why he did this when he should have known the impacts, Mr Sachdeva confirmed that ti was eight years ago and since then he was bus driver and was out ot he trade. He admitted his actions and said that they would not be repeated. He did not realise the impacts on the public health.
· The police expressed concerns at the admission that there was an intent to supply a class C drug.
· It was cofnrimed that Mr Sachdeva would be working with his busiess partner Mr Kapoor. The both drove buses together.
· Trading Standrads confirmed thgat the person licence was held since 2008. Mr Sachdeva was driving buses and also looking for suitable shops. Trading standdrs clarified that some complaints are fictious and some have merits, ony have wheter is evidence then it is justificwed.
Closing Submissions
All parties in attendance were asked if they had clsiing submissions.
The polocie cofnrimed that Mr Sachdeva admitted to buying Class Cdrug and tobacco itmes. He was handling stolen goods and submiited that training would not be sufficient to manage the licence premisis.
Trading standdrs confirmed that although this originally a breach of the crime and disorder objective she submiited that the public safety licensing objective had also been breached.
Mr Hopkins asked the Mr Sachdeva to eb given a nother chance.
Committee Deliberation
All parties were asked to leave the room while the Sub-Committee considered its decision.
All parties were invited back into the room for the Chairman to announce the decision of the Sub-Committee.
The Decision
The Sub-Committee has considered all the relevant representations made available to it and in doing so has taken into account the Licensing Act 2003, the Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under Section 182 of that Act, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and the Licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee has paid particular attention to S144 of the Licensing Act 2003 read together with Paragraphs 11.19, 11.24, 11.27 and 11.28 of the S182 Guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The Licensing Sub-Committee has determined that it is necessary and proportionate to revoke the premises licence for Ocean Superstore.
Right of appeal
No decision made by the Council will have effect during the time period within which an appeal may be brought and until such time that any appeal has been determined or abandoned.
The applicant for review, holder of the Premises Licence, or any other person who made relevant representations to the application may appeal against the Council’s decision to the Justice Clerk at the Uxbridge Magistrates Court. Such an appeal may be brought within 21 days of receipt of this Notice of Decision.
The Licence Holder will be deemed to have received the Decision Notice, two days after the date on the accompanying letter, which will be posted by first class mail.