Agenda item

Members:

Councillor L Marshall (Chair), Councillors P Atkinson and

C Hampson

 

The Committee considered a report of the Licensing Team Leader regarding an application for the review of a Premises Licence in respect of Premier Shield Row Food and Wine, 1 Rodham Terrace, Shield Row, Stanley (for copy see file of Minutes).

 

A copy of the application and supporting information had been circulated to Members, together with further information from the Applicant.

 

Laura Brooks, Team Leader, Trading Standards addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of the Applicants. Members were informed that Trading Standards received intelligence from the Police in December 2018 that the premises was alleging to be selling alcohol to young people under the age of 18. The area was experiencing problems of anti-social behaviour and Premier Food and Wine was targeted with other premises in a Police Operation. As part of that operation 2 test purchases were carried out, details of which were set out in the report.

 

Following the failed test purchases a visit was made to the premises by Trading Standards and the Police and the sales assistant who had failed made both sales had said that she had not been working in the store for very long and had received no training on challenging people and was unaware of any procedure for recording refusals. 

 

On 25 February 2019 Trading Standards met with the Licence Holder and found that the female was no longer working on the premises and found a number of negatives in terms of how the shop was managed:

 

·        Staff training was carried out verbally only and no records were kept

·        Challenge 25 posters were on display but there was no formal written policy

·        The till had an electronic prompt system for refusals but tickets were not retained.

 

Ms Brooks advised that she had met with the Licence Holder on 26 March 2019 to discuss conditions to be added to the Premises Licence. She was only confident that the licensing objective would be upheld with these ‘tweaks’ to the existing Premises Licence. Mr Ullah had expressed his willingness to take steps to ensure the licensing objective protection of children from harm was promoted. The complex points discussed were included in a letter to Mr Ullah, a copy of which had been circulated.

 

Following queries from Councillor Crathorne and Councillor Brown, Ms Brooks confirmed that there were two typing errors in the report - it was 15 January 2019 when Officers visited the premises and the sale made on the first visit was 4 cans of lager as stated in the witness statement, not a bottle of wine.

 

Following a further question from Councillor Brown about test purchases Ms Brooks advised that volunteers were carefully selected to ensure that they did not appear older than their actual ages. A large number of premises were targeted as part of an Operation.

 

Answering questions from Members, Ms Brooks confirmed that the alcohol was bagged and tagged as evidence so that it could be used in criminal proceedings.

 

The Licence Holders Barrister, Lorraine Mustard, confirmed that the same member of staff had failed both test purchases, but no longer worked there and had only worked there for a short period of time.  This was not a case of not wanting to comply with the licensing objectives.

 

Ms Brooks confirmed that there were some issues, particularly with staff training which needed addressing.  She had to advise Mr Ullah that he had to ensure all staff received full training.

 

The Barrister queried why the review was dated 6 March which was one week after the meeting with Mr Ullah on 25 February.  Ms Brooks confirmed that they were not confident that the recommended conditions would be adhered to if they were not determined by the Licensing Committee.

 

The Barrister asked why they couldn’t have given Mr Ullah the opportunity before applying for a review and Ms Brooks confirmed that there were two visits to the premises, one on 25 and one on 28 February, and there had been no changes made.  The same issues were discussed on 28 February and she was unaware whether any consideration was given to allow Mr Ullah a period of time to make the changes.

 

PCSO Williamson confirmed that she had visited on 15 January and the shop assistant said she only worked a couple of nights, she was not aware of a refusals register and had not been trained.  In response to the Councils Solicitor, PCSO Williamson confirmed that the FPN issued was for £90 and if it they are not paid, the recipient is summonsed to court.

 

Mr Ullah confirmed that he had five members of staff and one of them held a Personal Licence.  All staff had been sent for training and two were now in receipt of a Premises Licence and two staff were qualified DPS.  There had been an issue with one member of staff receiving a DPS.  He confirmed that he had purchased a programme for £100 per month which warned shop assistants to ask for ID and a receipt was produced for a refusal.  The Barrister suggested that there had been a lack of organisation in the past but a refusals register would be kept up to date.

 

With regards to the licensing objectives, the Barrister confirmed that there did not appear to be any reference in the report with regards to public nuisance, only the protection of children from harm.  As well as alcohol the store sold cigarettes and Lotto tickets, which were regularly checked by Camelot.  A letter was produced to the Chair which confirmed a successful test purchase had taken place by Camelot.  Mr Ullah was doing everything a Licence Holder could do and she did not feel it was necessary to take further action.

 

The Chair asked how often staff would undergo training and the Barrister confirmed that in addition to DPS training, staff had undertaken health and safety training by a certified company.  Mr Ullah had went beyond what was required by a Premises Licence Holder.

 

The Councils Solicitor asked if Mr Hussain had been on the DPS course and it was confirmed that was given internal training, of which records could be provided for inspection.  All new staff would be given new training.

 

Ms Brooks confirmed that when she met with Mr Ullah, they discussed reminders at regular intervals to remind staff about selling alcohol to children, Challenge 25 and with regards to health and safety.  In addition, he was advised to ensure that he was using the booklets given to complete when reminders were given.

 

In summing up Ms Brooks confirmed that the proposed course of action for the Sub-Committee was to consider more robust conditions to the premises licence which would help the business to promote the licensing objectives more effectively.

 

The Barrister summed up on behalf of the Licence Holder – it was clear that when given the opportunity of a tidying up exercise (which had been completely overlooked for a review), Mr Ullah had taken the right action.  Therefore, no further action was needed and this was not a case of not taking responsibility seriously – the Camelot test purchase proved he was – but Mr Ullah was already doing what was required and to burden him with additional conditions was unnecessary - he had addressed all of the issues raised.  She acknowledged that the Sub-Committee would take a proportionate view of what happened with a member of staff only being there a short period of time.

 

The Committee retired to deliberate the application in private at 10.55 am and upon returning at 11.10 am, the Chair delivered the Sub-Committees decision.

 

Resolved that the following conditions be imposed upon the Premises Licence:

 

The Prevention of Crime and Disorder

 

·                CCTV footage must be available and downloaded upon request by a Responsible Authority.

 

·                CCTV footage must be kept for a minimum of 28 days

 

·                All incidents occurring at the premises will be recorded in an Incident Book maintained by the Premises Licence holder or a nominated member of staff.  The details which will be recorded in the Incident Book are: the time and date of the incident; the name or full description of any person(s) involved (including staff members), whether the incident was recorded on CCTV, and the signature of the person making the entry.  This book will be available at all times for inspection by the Police and other Responsible Authorities upon request. 

 

·                Persons known to be, or suspected to be, buying alcohol or tobacco on behalf of children will be refused and reported to the Police. 

 

The Protection of Children from Harm

 

·                Adherence to the law surrounding the ban on the sale of alcohol and tobacco to those under 18.

 

·                The operation of a documented Age Certification Policy (Challenge 25) where all patrons believed to be under the age of 25 who seek to purchase age restricted goods will be asked to provide proof of age in the form of a UK Driving Licence, Passport, Military ID card or photo identification which is endorsed with the government PASS holographic logo.

 

·                A refusals register must be in place at the premises and used to keep a record of all attempted test purchases of alcohol and tobacco where a person believed to be under 25 is challenged and no identification is provided, and the sale is therefore refused. 

 

·                The refusals register should record: the date and time of the refusal, a description of the young person refused, the goods asked for, any significant comments made, or behaviours exhibited by the person and the signature of the person making the entry. 

 

·                The register should be checked for completion and signed off on a regular basis by the DPS or Premise Licence Holder.  The refusal register must be kept available at all times for inspection by the Police and other Responsible Authorities upon request. 

 

·                Persons known to be or suspected of buying on behalf of children will be refused and reported to the Police.

 

·                Notices to be displayed concerning the law surrounding the ban on the sale of alcohol to children and explaining the Challenge 25 scheme.

 

·                All staff to receive full training on the law surrounding the sale of age restricted products and the operation of the Challenge 25 scheme.  Regular reminders to staff as to their obligations with respect to the above.

 

·                All staff training records and reminders to be put in writing and kept as a record of training which must be kept on the premises and be available at all times for inspection by the Police and other Responsible Authorities on request.