Decision

Licensing Act 2003
Notice of Decision
 
PREMISES
Neyzen Restaurant
290 North Street
Romford
RM5 3AB
 
APPLICANT
Home Office
Immigration Department
 
Details of the application
 
The application to review a premises licence
is made by the Home Office Immigration Department under section 51
of the Licensing Act 2003. The application was received by
Havering’s Licensing Authority on 12th January 2026.
 
The Home Office Immigration Department is a
responsible authority as defined in section 13 of the Licensing Act
2003, as amended by Schedule 4 of the Immigration Act
2016.  This responsible authority
submitted this application to review a premises licence further to
an immigration enforcement visit previously undertaken at the
premises. The application and its attendant documentation detail
the circumstances surrounding this enforcement visit and the
matters discovered during the Immigration Enforcement Licensing
Compliance Team’s attendance. As a consequence, the
Immigration Department contends it has “grounds to believe
the license holder has failed to meet the licensing objectives of
prevention of crime and disorder, as illegal working has been
identified at this premises.”
 
 
?
Summary
 
There were no representations in relation to
this application from any other person or responsible
authority.
 
Determination of application for a review of
premises licence
 
1.           
The Licensing Sub-Committee considered an application for a review
of the premises licence for the premises situated at 290 North
Street, Romford, RM5 3AB.
 
2.         The
review application was submitted by the Home Office Immigration
Department. The application was made following a visit by Home
Office officers on the 1st of May 2025 where two individuals were
found to be working at the premises in breach of their immigration
terms.
3.         The
Sub-Committee were cognisant that in deciding in which powers to
invoke in the review process, the expectation of members is that it
should so far as possible seek to establish the cause or causes of
the concerns that the representations identify. Therefore, any
remedial action taken should generally be directed at these causes
and should always be no more than an appropriate and proportionate
response to address the causes of concern that instigated the
review.
 
4.         The
Sub-Committee were cognisant of the powers available to them being
taking no action, issue a warning, add, remove, or modify license
conditions, suspend the licence or revoke the licence entirely.
 
5.         The
Sub-Committee were cognisant of the secretary of state’s
statutory guidance which states
a.         Where
the licensing authority is conducting a review on the grounds that
the premises have been used for criminal purposes, its role is
solely to determine what steps should be taken in connection with
the premises licence, for the promotion of the crime prevention
objective. It is important to recognise that certain criminal
activity or associated problems may be taking place or have taken
place despite the best efforts of the licence holder and the staff
working at the premises and despite full compliance with the
conditions attached to the licence. In such circumstances, the
licensing authority is still empowered to take any appropriate
steps to remedy the problems. The licensing authority’s duty
is to take steps with a view to the promotion of the licensing
objectives and the prevention of illegal working in the interests
of the wider community and not those of the individual licence
holder.
b.         Where
there is certain criminal activity that may arise in connection
with licensed premises which should be treated particularly
seriously. These are the use of the licensed premises:
i.         
for the sale and distribution of drugs controlled under the Misuse
of Drugs Act 1971 and the laundering of the proceeds of drugs
crime;
ii.         for the
sale and distribution of illegal firearms;
iii.        for the
evasion of copyright in respect of pirated or unlicensed films and
music, which does considerable damage to the industries
affected;
iv.        for the
illegal purchase and consumption of alcohol by minors which impacts
on the health, educational attainment, employment prospects and
propensity for crime of young people;
v.         for
prostitution or the sale of unlawful pornography;
vi.        by organised
groups of paedophiles to groom children;
vii.       as the base for the
organisation of criminal activity, particularly by gangs;
viii.      for the organisation of
racist activity or the promotion of racist attacks;
ix.        for employing
a person who is disqualified from that work by reason of their
immigration status in the UK;
x.         for
unlawful gambling; and
c.         It is
envisaged that licensing authorities, the police, the Home Office
(Immigration Enforcement) and other law enforcement agencies, which
are responsible authorities, will use the review procedures
effectively to deter such activities and crime. Where reviews arise
and the licensing authority determines that the crime prevention
objective is being undermined through the premises being used to
further crimes, it is expected that revocation of the licence
– even in the first instance – should be seriously
considered.
 
6.         The
Sub-Committee were further cognisant of the council’s
statement of policy, in particular paragraph 13, which sets out the
council’s expectations in regard to the standards of
management by a licence holder.
 
Reasons:
 
7.         After
having taken into consideration all written and oral submissions
and considered the relevant sections of the Licensing Act 2003 and
assisted by the Paragraphs stated above of the S182 Guidance, and
the council’s statement of licensing policy, the
sub-committee feel that the appropriate and proportionate remedial
action is to revoke the premises licence for Neyzen Restaurant, 290
North Street, Romford, RM5 3AB
 
8.         The
Sub-Committee heard from the Home Office representative who read
out the letter of representation which detailed that a compliance
visit revealed that two illegal workers were working at the
premises who were employed by the licence holder as stated by the
restaurant’s manager. The members were also told that the
licence holder appealed the subsequent civil penalty notice at the
First Tier Tribunal but that appeal was dismissed and the fines
were upheld and moreover the fines are yet to be paid.
 
9.         The
Sub-Committee also found on balance of probabilities that the shed
at the back of the restaurant was indeed a living arrangement
provided to one of the workers.
 
10.       Turning to the
licence holder, the Sub-Committee were told that he was not running
the business due to health issues. The members also read the
licence holder’s supporting documents which stated that
‘I have never been involved in the operation or employment
decisions of the restaurant. My role in relation to this and other
properties I hold is limited to leasehold and management of leases
and do not manage tenant recruitment or day-to-day
staffing’.
 
11.       The Sub-Committee
found these representations very worrying, the licence holder by
his own admission had distanced himself from the operation of the
licence. The Sub-Committee followed up to ask the licence holder
what the four licensing objectives are and he was unable to provide
a satisfactory response which further demonstrated that the licence
holder was not operating the licence or at the very least is not a
competent licence holder.
 
 
 
 
 
Right of Appeal
 
Any party who has made a relevant
representation may appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21
days of notification of the decision.
 
On appeal, the Magistrates’ Court
may:
1.         Dismiss
the appeal; or
2.        
Substitute the decision for another decision which could have been
made by the Sub Committee; or
3.         Remit
the case to the Sub Committee to dispose of it in accordance with
the direction of the Court; and
4.         Make an
order for costs as it sees fit.