The Licensing Sub-Committee convened to review the premises licence for Food Centre, located at 190B Station Road, Edgware. The committee decided to revoke the licence due to concerns about the prevention of crime and disorder, and public safety, stemming from the repeated discovery of smuggled goods and breaches of licensing conditions at the premises. This decision was made after considering representations from the Trading Standards Team, the Licensing Authority, Public Health, and the Metropolitan Police.

Food Centre, 190B Station Road - Licence Revoked

The primary focus of the meeting was the review of the premises licence for the Food Centre, 190B Station Road, Edgware, following an application made under Section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003 by the London Borough of Barnet Trading Standards Authority. The Sub-Committee reviewed the application, and decided to revoke the licence for the premises.

The application for review was based on concerns that the premises had been found to be storing and selling smuggled goods, including non-duty paid cigarettes, hand-rolling tobacco, non-compliant vape products, and infringing items such as Snus/Nicopods with foreign labelling, as well as counterfeit Labubu dolls. These concerns, detailed in the Public Reports Pack, triggered the review based on the licensing objectives of preventing crime and disorder and ensuring public safety.

Karl Shultz, Trading Standards Team Leader, highlighted a history of non-compliance at the premises, including a joint inspection with the Metropolitan Police on 11 September 2024, during which non-compliant vapes, duty evaded cigarettes, and foreign labelled Snus/Nicopods were seized. A written warning was issued on 12 November 2024, but a follow-up visit on 20 December 2024 revealed similar issues.

Elisabeth Hammond from the Licensing Authority, supported the review, citing concerns for public safety, prevention of crime and disorder, and the protection of children. John Oliver, Senior Licensing Officer, referred to the Metropolitan Police's support for the revocation of the premises licence.

The Director of the Food Centre told the Sub-Committee that he had been suffering from Crohn's disease and had a hip replacement at the time of the inspections, and had asked his wife, Samia Asad, the Premises Licence Holder, to look after the premises. He also stated that his father previously managed the business and that his wife would no longer be the Designated Premises Supervisor or Premises Licence Holder and that these roles would be transferred to his father.

Samia Asad stated that when the Applicant and Metropolitan Police inspected the Premises last year, she was out of the country for three months, and that the staff at the Premises had purchased the offending stock. She also mentioned that the staff had advised her that some of the goods were purchased by a customer and left at the Premises and that the staff therefore stored it at the back of the Premises.

John Oliver noted that following the joint visit with the Applicant, which took place on 3 September 2025, and the PACE¹ interview which took place on 31 October 2025 with the Premises Licence Holder, the Licensing Team was of the view that the Premises Licence Holder does not have sufficient knowledge or understanding of her responsibilities under the Licensing Act 2003.

The Sub-Committee heard that there were multiple breaches of the licence conditions, namely conditions 3, 9 and 11 as the CCTV system was not fully operational or maintained. Condition 17 was also breached as the refusal logs had not been updated since September 2024 and conditions 20 and 21 were breached as staffing levels were inadequate, and training records were unavailable. Condition 23 was breached as no incident log was available and conditions 31 and 32 were breached as the required signage and staffing arrangements after midnight were not in place.

The Sub-Committee noted that there was an alleged assault at the Premises and asked the Premises Licence Holder why the CCTV was not available. The Premises Licence Holder denied that the CCTV was not available and stated that she asked the morning staff why they did not provide the CCTV, and they said that they did not recall.

The Applicant's Representative responded that the Applicant had no faith that removal of the Designated Premises Supervisor would lead to compliance with the licensing objectives, noting that the Premises Licence Holder and Director's son was previously the designated premises supervisor, and he was subsequently removed following the interview arising from the first inspection on 11 September 2024.

The Sub-Committee concluded that the premises were trading irresponsibly and that tough action was required to tackle the problems at the premises. The Sub-Committee was of the view that permanent or temporary modifications of the conditions would not be appropriate or sufficient as the Premises Licence Holder had failed to uphold the licensing objectives of preventing crime and disorder and public safety.

The Sub-Committee resolved to revoke the licence.

Licensing Sub-Committee Hearing Procedure

The Licensing Sub-Committee Hearing Procedure was outlined by Councillor Richard Barnes, Chair of the Licensing Sub-Committee, at the beginning of the meeting. The procedure is based on regulations made by the Secretary of State under the Licensing Act 2003. The procedure allows each party a maximum period of 3 minutes in which to present their case.