The Licensing Sub-Committee met to consider a review of the premises licence for Sam Food & Wine at 55A Field Road in Forest Gate. The review had been requested by the council's own Licensing Enforcement Team after two failed compliance checks, and was supported by Newham Trading Standards and a local councillor. After hearing representations from the licence holder, the committee decided to issue an informal warning and to take no further action.

Review of Premises Licence for 55A Field Road, Forest Gate, London E7 9DW

The sub-committee heard evidence that the shop had sold alcohol outside of its permitted hours, had sold alcohol to a person under the age of 18, and had failed to comply with a number of the conditions on its licence, such as the requirement for a personal licence holder to be present at all times when alcohol is being sold, the requirement for staff to have received adequate training, and the requirement to keep a refusals book.

A representative for the licence holder, Mr Shafiq Jan, said that Mr Jan had agreed with a Mr Singh that Mr Singh would run the premises for a six-month trial period beginning in July 2024 with a view to buying the business from Mr Jan if the trial was successful. Mr Jan had checked that Mr Singh had a personal licence at the time of the agreement, and had talked him through the premises licence and its conditions. Mr Jan had also spoken to Mr Singh weekly by phone and had visited the premises on two occasions to make sure there were no problems.

The sub-committee heard that Mr Jan was horrified to learn that the business had failed its compliance checks. He had immediately tried to contact the council's licensing team, and had severed his business dealings with Mr Singh.

Mr Jan now recognised that he should have changed the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) on the licence to Mr Singh when he entrusted him with the premises. He had now undertaken fresh training in the licensing regime, including training in the role and responsibilities of a DPS, to ensure there is no future non-compliance, and had addressed the failings identified during the compliance checks.

The sub-committee found that revoking the licence would be disproportionate, and that while they had strongly considered suspending it, they had decided against it.

The members found that taking no action and giving an informal warning is the most appropriate step to take to promote the licensing objectives.

The review was brought due to failed compliance checks which appeared to the members was due to the licence holder being naïve in entrusting his business to another person and taking a step back in terms of his responsibility as a DPS. The members were cognisant that the DPS is the person who authorises the sale of alcohol, will normally be the person who has been given day-to-day responsibility for running the premises and be the point of contact for Responsible Authorities. The members found that his naivety is not an excuse for the failings but conversely an aggravating feature of the breaches.

The sub-committee noted that some of the breaches could have resulted in a prosecution given the gravity of the failure. They decided that a warning was a proportionate response on this occasion, but warned the licence holder that any future review hearing will include this decision in the agenda pack and is likely to be an important consideration in the decision-making process.

The committee also reminded the licence holder that the licensing authority would have a record of the breaches, and that any future breaches may have more severe consequences.

The sub-committee noted that since acquiring the licence in 2017, the premises had not been subject to any other complaints, and that the review process itself appeared to have demonstrated to the licence holder that he was at risk of losing his licence.