Agenda item - Review of Premises Licence:-Moss Lane Convenience Store
Agenda item
Review of Premises Licence:-Moss Lane Convenience Store
Report of Legal Services Manager/Interim Monitoring Officer attached.
Minutes:
The Panel was reconvened following the original meeting on 7 November 2018 to determine the review of an application in respect of Moss Lane Convenience Store, pursuant to the provisions of Section 52 of the Licencing Act 2003.
The initial hearing was adjourned as it was not in the public interest to continue the meeting. This was due to the meeting not adhering to its own constitution, in that neither the Chair nor Vice Chair of the committee were available to lead the meeting.
The application for review was brought by the Council’s Head of Licensing Mark Marshall on behalf of the Licencing Authority as a Responsible Authority. The review was instigated as the Licencing Authority were of a view that 3 of the 4 licencing objectives had been undermined. These being the prevention of crime and disorder, the protection of children from harm and public safety.
The Premises Licence Holder and Designated Premises Supervisor, Ranga Ratnasekera was in attendance and was represented by Paul Douglas.
On 4 June 2018 the premises was visited by Licensing to carry out a routine compliance check. Numerous matters were found and communicated to the licence holder. A summary of the problems were;
a) No Proof of Age Training available for Donna Bamber who had been employed at the premises for 1 month,
b) Unable to maintain/operate the CCTV system (a and b were conditions attached to the licence)
c) Fire separation issues
d) Work Place safety problems particularly in relation to flooring and storage areas.
Following the original visit the premises were then visited again on the 24 August 2018 in joint partnership with the Home Office and Lancashire Fire and Rescue.
The Head of Licensing explained that there was one employee working, Nadeera Kaushika Rupasinghe. Enquiries were made by the Home Office regarding Rupasinghe’s immigration status which revealed he did not have rights to work in the UK. A search of Rupasinghes mobile phone revealed that he had been working for the Premises Licence Holder since December 2017. The licence holder was informed that she would be issued with a civil penalty for employing an illegal worker.
A further visit was undertaken on 7 September 2018 as part of a directed test purchase exercise. An underage volunteer was sent into the premises by a Police Constable and was sold alcohol. The seller was Donna Bamber, a staff member the licencing authority had met on the first visit in June 2018.
Mr Marshall advised to the Panel that he had visited the premises again on the 10 September 2018. To check if staff training was in place. The Premises Licence Holder was unable to provide any training records, despite having been advised to do so.
The Panel then heard representations from Mr Swayne of the Home Office, Immigration Enforcement Section. Mr Swayne explained that they had had concerns that the Premises Licence Holder had employed an illegal worker since December 2017 until the discovery in August 2018. Currently, his immigration status is as an over stayer in the UK, after his claim for asylum was applied for on 13 June 2017 was refused. Although it was confirmed that there was an outstanding review from 13 June 2018.
Mr Swayne explained to the Panel that when Mr Rupasinghe claimed asylum he was given an Asylum Registration Card which clearly states employment is prohibited. When he sought employment at Moss Lane Convenience Store, it was the responsibility of the owner of the business to make enquiries in respect of any foreign national’s right to work in the UK. When questioned whether Mr Rupasinghe’s immigration status had been checked, the Premises Licence Holder provided that her husband had asked for documents and was told by Mr Rupasinghe that he was on a five year working visa and that her husband had seen his application for a visa.
Mr Douglas on behalf of Mrs Ratnasekera made representations to the Panel. Mr Douglas provided that when Mr Rupasinghe was first employed the Premises Licence Holder was heavily pregnant and accepts that the checks carried out were not good enough. The Premises Licence Holder and her husband accepted all the evidence presented by Mr Marshall and Mr Swayne and no attempts were made to make any excuses.
With regards to the underage sale, Mr Douglas stated that Miss Bamber had been given the training package by the Premises Licence Holder a month after she commenced work at the premises and after the visit by Mr Marshall. The Premises Licence Holder thought Miss Bamber understood the policy. Mr Douglas provided that he had been brought in to deal with the issues at the premises and he was ready to undertake training of the Premises Licence Holder and any employees. He provided that there was no problem with the CCTV and that the Premises Licence Holder now understood the terms of the licence.
The Panel queried whether Mr Rupasinghe had also been on the account books. The Premises Licence Holder confirmed that she did not deduct national insurance or tax for Mr Rupasinghe and provided him with cash payments.
In reaching its decision the Panel took into account the following:
1. Both written and oral evidence presented in connection with the hearing
2. The Licensing Act 2003
3. S182 Revised Guidance of the Licencing Act 2003
4. South Ribble Borough Council – Licencing Policy
The Panel carefully considered all the evidence provided by the parties at the hearing together with the S182 Guidance and the Council’s licencing policy. It was the Panel’s view that Mr Marshall had appropriately made contact with the Premise Licence Holder on the 5 June 2018 by letter to raise concerns about problems identified at the premises. A training package was also enclosed for the Premises Licence Holder due to the fact that licensing conditions were not being adhered to. This the Panel felt was the warning for the Premises Licence Holder to take appropriate action.
The Panel considered the steps it could take to address the undermining of the licensing objectives. It considered that the modifying of the licensing conditions would not assist as there was already no compliance with the training condition, which was one of the issues. The panel felt that enhancing this condition would not work. It was obvious that the management of the premises was a problem. Therefore, the removal of the designated premises supervisor was considered but it was concluded that this would have no real effect.
Resolved (Unanimously)
Decision:
In the circumstances, the Panel felt that the only appropriate measure was to revoke the licence. Serious criminal activity had taken place at the premises and it was warranted that in the public interest having regard to the two considerations of prevention and deterrence, revocation of the premises licence was an appropriate and proportionate response in terms of promoting the licencing objectives.
Any party aggrieved by the decision of the panel, has a right to appeal the decision to the Magistrates Court within 21 days.
Supporting documents:
- Moss Lane Report, item 7. PDF 97 KB View as DOCX (7./1) 30 KB
- Appendix A, item 7. PDF 75 KB View as DOCX (7./2) 17 KB
- Appendix B, item 7. PDF 6 MB
- Appendix B amended, item 7. PDF 9 MB
- Appendix C, item 7. PDF 196 KB