Agenda item

To consider report HCS/061of the Head of Community Services, including related Appendices A - H.

 

Further information from Saad News (documents 1 and 5 of Appendix H) to follow.

The Sub-Committee considered an application to review the Premises Licence held in respect of the premises Saad News Agent Ltd, 8 Brighton Road, Crawley, RH10 6AA (Southgate Ward).

 

Following the introduction of those present at the Hearing, the Senior Lawyer outlined the procedure for the Hearing, a copy of which had accompanied the documentation issued prior to the meeting.  The Senior Lawyer informed all parties that the Sub-Committee had requested a pre-meeting with the Senior Lawyer and Democratic Services Officer prior to the commencement of the Sub-Committee, to confirm the procedure that would be followed during the Hearing.  At that pre-meeting, the Sub-Committee had confirmed receipt of the supplementary agenda documents which had been circulated following publication of the main agenda.  It was confirmed that the Sub-Committee had not asked for clarification of any aspect of the application or on the representations received from any party.

 

The Senior Lawyer then asked all parties present, if they wished to make any relevant applications, for example additional information or for an adjournment.  No applications were made.

 

The Chair informed the meeting that although the application and other material circulated ahead of the meeting was exempt (Part B), it was the intention to hold the discussion in Open – Public Session (Part A).

 

Report HCS/061 of the Council’s Head of Community Services was presented by the Health, Safety and Licensing Team Leader for Crawley Borough Council.

 

The Application

 

The Council’s Health, Safety and Licensing Team Leader, informed the Sub-Committee that on 2 May 2023, WSCC Trading Standards had submitted an application to the Council as the Licensing Authority for the Borough of Crawley for a review of the Premises Licence in respect of Premises known as Saad News Agent Ltd, 8 Brighton Road, Crawley.  The application was detailed in Appendix A to the report HSC/061 and sought a review on the grounds that the licence holder was not promoting the statutory Licensing Objectives of prevention of crime and disorder and protection of children from harm. 

 

Trading Standards contended that the licensing objectives had been undermined by the  Premises Licence Holder (PLH) and Designated Premises Supervisor, Mr Riafan Caseem Lebbe, following a test alcohol purchase failure, and had also failed to ensure the licensed premises was run in accordance with the conditions attachedto thePremises Licenceto appropriately deal with the management of the premises.

 

A copy of the Location Plan was attached as Appendix B to the report, along with the Premises Licence and Premises Layout Plan (Appendix C), and further evidence submitted from WSCC Trading Standards as Appendix D.

It was confirmed that the application had been advertised in accordance with legislation, and as a result of the consultation process, three relevant representations had been received.Further to the initial application for a review of the Premises Licence, additional evidence had been submitted by WSCC Public Health (Appendix E to the report) supporting the review application by Trading Standards which sought a suspension of the Premises Licence and together with additional conditions as a means to promote the Licensing Objectives.

Also, further evidence had been submitted by Sussex Police (included within Appendix F to the report), which supported the review application and similarly recommended additional conditions.  A representation had also been received from West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service (Appendix G) which advised that West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service had no representation or comments to make.

Mr Lebbe as the PLH had submitted a response to the Trading Standards application (Appendix H to the report), along with supporting evidence.This information had been issued as supplementaryagenda itemsand hadbeen circulated to all partiesfollowing publicationof report HCS/061.

The Health, Safety and Licensing Team Leader then proceeded to inform the hearing of the options available to it in respect of the application and reminded the Sub-Committee that any decision must beappropriate forthe promotionof thefour licensingobjectives. Theoptions wereto:

(i)            Modify theconditions ofthe premises licence (that is, adding new conditions or

any alteration to or omission of existing conditions).

(ii)           Exclude alicensable activityform thescope ofthe premises licence.

(iii)         Remove theDesignated PremisesSupervisor (DPS).

(iv)         Suspend thelicence fora periodnot exceedingthree months.

(v)          Revoke thelicence.

 

The Chair confirmedthat theSub-Committee hadread allthe documentspublished in relation to the review and the representations received.

Following the presentation from the Health, Safety and Licensing Team Leader there were no questions from any party in relationto the report.

 

The Applicant (Trading Standards)

 

Mr Peter Aston, (Trading Standards Team Manager), then addressed the Sub-Committee highlighting the concerns contained within the application for a review of the licence (Appendix A to the report) along with the further evidence (Appendix D).  Mr Aston made the following submissions:

 

·         Following Covid, there were concerns regarding the increase in intelligence that some businesses were taking advantage of the pandemic by selling a range of age-restricted products to children, which was not only harmful to children but also had an impact on legitimate businesses who complied with legislation.   As a result, the decision was taken in January 2020 to implement a ‘zero-tolerance’ policy on alcohol in particular to children.

·         Intelligence regarding underage sales of restricted products to children has continued to escalate and in 2021 West Sussex County Council commenced a ‘crackdown’ on underage sales following a test purchase operation resulting in 9 out of 16 premises selling alcohol and cigarettes to children.

·         With regards to the underage sale conducted on the premises (Saad News Agent), in view of intelligence received, followed by the warnings and advice provided by Trading Standards, and the subsequent underage sale of alcohol it was believed that the Licence Holder was undermining the licensing objectives with regards to the prevention of crime and disorder and the protection of children from harm, as well as the Council’s current Statement of Licensing Policy.

·         The primary act of a review was to act as a deterrent to prevent further breaches. 

·         It was requested the Sub-Committee consider imposing the measures proposed by the Responsible Authorities.  A suspension of the licence would send out a strong message across the town and county that where premises were found to be in breach of the licensing objectives, particularly regarding child protection matters, that sanctions were strongly administered.

 

Questions asked by the Sub-Committee of the Applicant (Trading Standards)

 

The Sub-Committee then asked the following questions of the Applicant:

 

Questions by the Sub-Committee	Response (Mr Peter Aston)
Someone already complained about the sale to a 13/14-year-old, and they brought it to your attention and then Trading Standards visited the premises.  Are you aware of any other misdemeanors or is that the only complaint you received?	I cannot provide you with the full history unfortunately but in terms of what triggered this licence review application we received one complaint. We act on each complaint or piece of intelligence we receive.
If you hadn’t received that complaint, you would not have gone to review the premises?  Do you go round and review premises regularly?	With regards to this, we act on the intelligence received, we visit the premises to provide robust advice and then follow up in writing. An appointment is made with the Licence Holder to ensure they are fully aware of the information and complaint received.  They are also warned that Trading Standards will be undertaking a subsequent test purchase operation.
First time Trading Standards visit you provide advice and information.  Is that standard procedure to receive advice and improvement areas first?	That is part of Trading Standards ‘zero tolerance’ policy. We set out how we look to address the significant problems in West Sussex and Crawley with regards to the selling of restricted products. We may receive allegations of children being sold vapes and if the shop also sells alcohol, we will carry out an advice visit and then this is followed up with a test purchase visit to check the procedures. This ensures the premises is compliant with all legislation and the Challenge 25 policy.

 

Questions by Other Parties of the Applicant

 

WSCC Public Health did not have any questions for the applicant.

 

Questions by Other Parties (PLH) of the Applicant (WSCC Trading Standards)

 

Licence Holder’s Representative, Mr Panchal, then asked the following questions of the Applicant:

 

Questionson behalf of the PLH (Mr Surendra Panchal)	Response (Mr Peter Aston)
It mentions in the report that in 2021 there was a crackdown of approximately 16 premises. Out of the 16, was Saad News Agent included?	No it was not.  As mentioned, it was following Covid, and we have made extensive media coverage as a deterrent that it is not acceptable to sell alcohol to children.
Saad News Agent was not part of the visit because they were complying in that instance?	Trading Standards had not received any intelligence about Saad News at that point.
Trading Standards received intelligence in August 2022 do you have any evidence for that?	It is quite often anonymous information as it was in this case that Trading Standards then follows up.
There was a record kept of this intelligence and that would help us prove whether there was intelligence received or its just hearsay?	It is hearsay and that is the point of undertaking the visit to the premises. We cannot be 100% sure of the intelligence received. However that is the trigger for the visit and the substantial advice provided to the Licence Holder with regards to their obligations which was subsequently followed up in writing.  The Licence Holder is informed that Trading Standards will conduct a test purchase operation.
So you were not sure that on 8 August 2022 underage sales took place or not?	Trading Standards receive intelligence from parents, other businesses that premises is undertaking underage sales of alcohol and we act upon that.

 

 

Responsible Authority (WSCC Public Health)

 

The representatives for West Sussex County Council’s Public Health Department, Ms Sophie Krousti and Ms HollyYandall were both in attendance.  Ms Yandalladdressed theSub-Committee and made the following submissions:

·         Appropriate action had not been taken by the premises, following initial intelligence received from Trading Standards and the advice visit which had resulted in a test purchase failure.  This suggested the premises was not taking its responsibility seriously.

·         Had the conditions on the premises licence been adhered to and the licensing objectives promoted, it was unlikely that the incident outlined in the report would have taken place.  It was clear that the staff training, particularly regarding the Challenge 25 policy were inadequate.

·         A recent national survey published 2022, which found that 40% of young people (11-15) surveyed had drunk alcohol, and these figures were likely to be broadly similarly across the county and the town.

·         Each year in West Sussex, there were more than 65 alcohol specific hospital admissions in children, where the primary and secondary diagnosis was wholly attributed to alcohol.  This did not include broader ‘alcohol-related’ admissions (which was increasing).

·         A key measure in preventing alcohol admissions was preventing the supply of alcohol to children.  It was important that licensed premises promoted the licensing objectives.

·         West Sussex Public Health supported the recommended actions and conditions proposed by the applicant in its application for review and those of Sussex Police.  These would allow for full staff re-training and review of policies and procedures.

 

Questions asked by the Sub-Committee of Responsible Authority (WSCC Public Health)

 

The Sub-Committee then asked the following questions of WSCC Public Health:

 

Questions by the Sub-Committee	Response (Ms Holly Yandall)
You mentioned there was a template for the Challenge 25, do we know if that was put into place at the premises?	My understanding is that the details of the Challenge 25 along with the refusal log template were provided by Trading Standards as set out in their representation.
You mentioned there was a growing trend of alcohol, are there any other trends that are causing concern?	As my colleague in Trading Standards has alluded to, we are concerned about sales of age restricted products to children more broadly. In my experience where we see underage sales of one restricted product and those procedures are not working, we also see other sales of age restricted products too.

 

Questions by Other Parties of the Responsible Authority (WSCC Public Health)

 

WSCC Trading Standards did not have any questions for WSCC Public Health.

 

Questions by Other Parties (PLH) of the Responsible Authority (WSCC Public Health)

 

Licence Holder’s Representative, Mr Panchal, then asked the following questions of the Responsible Authority, WSCC Public Health:

 

Questionson the behalf of the PLH (Mr Surendra Panchal)	Response (Ms HollyYandall)
I’m concerned within the report it mentions that a 12–13-year-old was served alcohol. Yet there is no evidence for this. Is that correct within the report?	In the representation made by Trading Standards, I refer to the intelligence they received about the sale of alcohol to a 12–13-year-old.
But in the report, it mentions a 17-year-old so can that be rectified please?	Yes, but the understanding is that the initial intelligence received that caused them to undertake the visit, was that alcohol was sold to a 12–13-year-old child.  Trading Standards visited the premises, provided advice and then followed up with a test purchase operation with a 17-year-old volunteer.
The guidance and Licensing Act states that a 17-year-old can sit in a pub or restaurant with a meal and can have wine or cider.	I am familiar with that part of the Licensing legislation, but I am also familiar with the part that states that alcohol must not be sold to a child under 18.
I am trying to clarify the report. When the report mentions a 12–13-year-old, but it was a 17-year-old. The intelligence is not confirmed yet.  What is confirmed is the 17-year-old was sold alcohol.  Do you still confirm that a 12–13-year-old was served?	My representation makes it clear we are referring to the intelligence by the Trading Standards department which is the catalyst for this process in the first place. As Mr Aston has already set out, Trading Standards can receive multiple reports regarding age restricted sales, and they cannot directly verify those if they are anonymous. The process is to go and visit that venue, provide the advice, guidance and support to that Licence Holder to have all the processes in place. There will be a follow up when there will have been ample time for those procedures to have been implemented, to conduct a test purchase to ensure everything is running as it should.  That is the process that was followed in this case.  Evidently there is still the sale of alcohol to a child.
We cannot verify in your report that alcohol was sold to a 12–13-year-old child within the report as it is hearsay.	In the story as to how we have reached here today we started with a concerned member of the community submitting a report to Trading Standards that 12–13-year-old had been sold alcohol. Regardless of that, we do have evidence that a 17-year-old child was sold alcohol which is still in breach of the licensing objectives.

 

PLH (Mr Lebbe - Saad News Agent Ltd)

 

Mr Surendra Panchal of PLC Ltd, the representative for Mr Lebbe, PLH of Saad News Agent Ltd, addressed the Sub Committee and drew its attention to the representation submitted along with supporting evidence (Appendix H), and made the following submissions:

·         The Licence Holder had many years’ experience and stated since 2016 to-date had not personally breached the licence as he himself had not conducted any underage sales, as this one sale had been carried out by an employee.

·         The Licence Holder actively carried out staff training with training statements being signed by staff and refusal logs had been maintained since 2016.

·         The Licence Holder was concerned regarding the premises and the licensing objectives.  Following the underage sale, the employee was questioned, and a warning letter issued.  Subsequently the member of staff’s employment was terminated.

·         The test purchase failure did not equate to ‘two sales of alcohol within very quick succession of one another’ nor ‘persistent sales’, under the Revised Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 (s11.29).  There had been no further evidence of underage sales or further visits following the test purchase failure from the Responsible Authorities.

·         The Licence Holder had the support of local community.

·         The Licence Holder confidently promoted the licensing objectives and would support the conditions proposed by Sussex Police.

 

Questions asked by the Sub-Committee of the PLH

 

The Sub-Committee then asked the following questions of the PLH:

 

Questions by the Sub-Committee	Response (respondent in brackets)
We are here to discuss the underage sale of alcohol, which was witnessed and proved following an anonymous report, but are you saying that could have been a false report or are you admitting there was a report, because that came across that you were doubting the first incident that could have taken place.	On repeatedly asking Mr Lebbe and his staff, Mr Lebbe does not agree with the 8 August report because a proper policy was running at the premises. There is no evidence that you have and there is no CCTV to show that there was a sale. No sale occurred according to Mr Lebbe. Mr Lebbe cannot prove that a sale occurred. (Mr Panchal)
So the CCTV camera was not operational?	The CCTV was operating but the employee could not download the CCTV. (Mr Panchal).   With regards to the Trading Standards visit, they came in and talked to my staff.  Then they called over the phone, and we spoke, and they informed me they were going to carry out another visit. I asked if there anything further was required. CCTV is held for 31 days by law.  I dispute the report as I have a child and as you can see by my record, I follow all the training for my staff and have the logs. (Mr Lebbe)
I was wondering if someone could have reported it maliciously.  However, we are talking about underage sale to a 17-year-old. Did you put into place all the suggestions by Trading Standards, for example Challenge 25?	Challenge 25 has been in place and followed since 2015 as Mr Lebbe understands the policies in place, along with the training manual and refusal log.  (Mr Panchal)
If the procedures and policies are in place and operating how come sales were made to an underage person?	Mr Lebbe was very concerned that the sale was conducted by a member of staff.  Mr Lebbe carried out training but unfortunately the employee made a mistake, a warning letter was issued, and the member of staff has had their employment terminated. (Mr Panchal)
Do you have any competitors around locally?	There is a shop nearby round the corner. (Mr Lebbe)
Mr Panchal, I think you said earlier in your presentation that you weren’t entirely sure why you and Mr Lebbe were here today.  Trading Standards found that the premises sold alcohol to an underage person and that is a very serious offence.	I am not disputing that it is serious but my reason for saying that was that we have fully co-operated with the responsible authorities and acted following the sale. Necessary actions have been put in place. (Mr Panchal)
With regards to the refusal log, I cannot see anything after 2019. It goes from 2016-2019.	If you would like the logs from 2019 these are available. We have just submitted up to 2019. (Mr Panchal)
I would expect you would submit logs for the period under question and officers have stated that the log book was not there at the time so it would be expected for those to be submitted.	The refusal logs are available from 2019 onwards. (Mr Panchal)

 

 

Following Legal advice provided by the Senior Lawyer, the Sub-Committee and all parties agreed to examine the additional refusal logs documentation (consisting of loose pages), which was made available to all parties by Mr Panchal.

 

 

Questions asked by the Licensing Authority of the PLH

 

The Licensing Authority, then asked the following questions of the PLH:

 

Questions by the Licensing Authority (Health,Safety andLicensing TeamLeader)	Response (respondent in brackets)
I am concerned by the sales refusal logs that have been provided. The original evidence only included up until 2019.  Why was not the additional refusal log documentation just seen submitted as part of the original evidence?	It was an error in the scanning as it was in my bundle but not in the completed batch to be scanned and for that I apologise. (Mr Panchal).
The refusal log from 2019-2021 refers to Chesterfield Borough Council and the name of the premises is blank, so I am confused as to whether this refusal log does refer to this premises at all. Additionally the most recent refusal register provided through to Trading Standards does show some refusals between 10 May 2023 – 18 May 2023, after the incident had occurred and the review proceedings had been initiated.  A refusal log needs to relate to a particular premises.	The refusal log was downloaded from the internet and is a template. I did not put a shop name on it as it has been kept within my premises. (Mr Lebbe)
The training records provided primarily relate to training undertaken on 10 May.  Was there training undertaken after the first warning by Trading Standards when they were acting on intelligence?	The training for the individual who conducted the sales had training undertaken in January 2023.  (Mr Lebbe)
Conditions have been suggested by WSCC Public Health today and you have submitted some information with regards to proposed conditions.  Sussex Police have also submitted conditions. Do you agree to the conditions submitted by Sussex Police?	We looked at the conditions suggested by Sussex Police, and we looked to amalgamate them, but we are happy with any conditions that the Sub Committee wish to apply or edit. (Mr Panchal)

 

 

Questions asked by the Applicant (Trading Standards) of the PLH

 

Mr Peter Aston, the Applicant’s representative, then asked the following questions of the PLH:

 

Questions by the Applicant (Mr Peter Aston)	Response (respondent in brackets)
At the beginning of your presentation, you mentioned that Mr Lebbe had never breached his licence. However on the visit on 31 August the refusal books were not present during the visit. Do you accept that?	I spoke to the person over the phone, but I strongly disagree. I was working at the premises and the refusal book was there but mistakenly kept under some paperwork and receipts, so members of staff were unable to find it. (Mr Lebbe)
Your representative has commented regarding the alleged visit of the 12-13 year olds on 8 August.  Did you check the CCTV for that day?	I was working that day and did not make the sales. (Mr Lebbe)
You could have reviewed that CCTV footage of 8 August and presented it to the responsible authority that you had not made a sale on 8 August?	The letter was received more than a month later. (Mr Lebbe)

 

WSCC Public Health did not have any questions for the PLH.

 

 

Closing Statement by the Applicant (Trading Standards)

 

Mr Peter Aston, the Applicant’s representative, made the following points in their closing statement:

 

·         Trading Standards did not have confidence that the licensing objectives were or will be promoted by the continuation of licensable activities at the premises.

·         It was felt there was a lack of action in terms of addressing the policies and training of staff.

·         A suspension of the premises alcohol licence for 3 months would allow for re-training of staff and a deterrent.

 

 

Closing Statement by the Responsible Authority (WSCC Public Health)

 

Ms Holly Yandall made the following points in their closing statement:

 

·         The sale of alcohol to children is incredibly harmful.

·         The current training policies and procedures whilst in place were inadequate and improvements were required.

 

 

Closing Statement by the PLH

 

Mr Surendra Panchal, on behalf of Mr Lebbe, made the following points in their closing statement:

 

·         There was concern that the underage sale occurred. But swift action had been taken by the Licence Holder in order to continue to promote the Licensing Objectives.

·         The Licence Holder would endorse the conditions submitted by Sussex Police and any by the Sub Committee.