Content

Notification of decision following a Licensing Panel hearing to
determine an application for a review of a premises licence under
section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003
 
PREMISES: Elux Superstore, 168 Heston
Road, Heston, W5 0QU (‘the Premises’)
 
APPLICANT: Hounslow Trading Standards,
Trimmer Centre, Netley Road, TW8 0SF
 
TAKE NOTICE THAT
ON 22 April 2025 following a hearing
before the Licensing and General Purposes Sub Committee (the
“Licensing Panel” or
“Panel”),
 
HOUNSLOW
COUNCIL, as the Licensing Authority for
the Premises RESOLVED that:
 
On review of the premises
licence for Elux Superstore, 168 Heston Road, Heston, W5 0QU, the
premises licence is REVOKED.
 
REASONS:
 
1.               
The Panel convened to determine an application for a
review of the premises licence for Elux Superstore, 168 Heston
Road, Heston, W5 0QU (“the Premises”) under s51
of the Licensing Act 2003.
 
2.               
The application was made by Hounslow Trading
Standards Appendix A who asked for a review of the licence
due to serious concerns that the licensing objectives of the
prevention of crime and disorder, public safety and the protection
of children from harm where being undermined.
 
3.               
No other representations were received although the
police had provided a statement, contained within Appendix
A.
 
4.               
The premises licence holder was present and
represented and suggested the licence be suspended on this occasion
rather than revoked.
 
5.               
It should be noted the premises licence
allowed for the sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises
(the licensable activity) between Monday to Sunday 10.00 to 23.00.
The panel took all aspects into consideration giving particular
consideration to the law, guidance, policies, evidence presented
before and during the hearing, including submissions made by the
representative of the premises licence holder, to arrive at their
decision.
 
Licensing Panel hearing
 
6.               
At the start of the hearing the Chair informed those
in attendance that the third panel member was absent, but the
quorum is two members and as such, the panel hearing can take
place, as determined under the London
Borough of Hounslow Council’s Constitution Section 4B
Committee Procedure Rules paragraph 11.1.
 
7.               
During the licensing panel hearing the facts giving
rise to the application for the grant of a premises licence were
set out by the licensing officer and were agreed by the
Applicant.
 
Submissions by the Applicant
 
8.               
The Applicant explained their involvement at the
Premises and outlined their contact with the business as follows
and addressed the reasons why concerns existed:-
a.    
First contact had been in an advisory capacity by
letter sent to Elux Superstore on the 8 February 2023. This letter
advised about illegal vapes and what checks a responsible retailer
should undertake to ensure products were compliant. The letter
warned trading standards carried out routine inspections and an
accompanying leaflet warned of criminal offences that could be
committed.
b.    
A routine trading standards inspection was carried
out on the 21 March 2023, where 89 illegal electronic cigarettes
(Vapes) were seized. The company and the director of the company
accepted a caution for an offence committed under the Tobacco and
Related Products Regulations 2016. A caution is the admittance of a
criminal offence.
c.    
A further routine inspection was carried out on
10th of September 2024 when further illicit goods were
seized which included 4 non-compliant vapes, 140 tablets of illicit
non-UK approved erectile dysfunction medication, 41 boxes of non-UK
approved Kamagra oral jelly medication (1 box contained 7 packets,
total packets 287), 429 pouches of illicit chewing tobacco & 23
tubs of illicit shisha. It was stated these products are illegal
and dangerous to consumers. The tax is not paid on these illegal
goods. 
d.    
On the 15th November 2024, the premises
licence holder was invited to attend a formal interview under the
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. He did not answer any of the
questions and chose to exercise his right to silence and answered
‘no comment’ to the questions.
 
9.               
The Applicant stated that due to this history the
Premises Licence Holder, who was also the designated premises
supervisor was not a fit and proper person to hold the premises
licence and therefore the licence should be revoked. It was
asserted that the lack of cooperation and criminal conduct was not
in line with licensing objectives or his obligations as a premises
licence holder and a designated premises supervisor.
 
10.           
In support of the application to revoke the premises
licence there was evidence of 13 violations of the premises licence
as outlined in PC Davies statement, part of Appendix A (most
of the annex 2 conditions consistent with the operating schedule
were not adhered too). In the realm none of the CCTV conditions
were adhered to on the 10th of September 2024, as the
staff were unable to work the CCTV system, therefore it was not
clear if any recordings were being made and no footage could be
obtained by the officer, and no one on the Premises appeared to be
able to work the CCTV.  Furthermore,
there was no signage that CCTV was being operated. This appeared to
be in breach of conditions 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Annex 2 of the licence.
Purchases of certain goods were not from reputable cash and carries
as there were illegal goods on the premises (condition 5 breached).
It could not be evidenced that the Challenge 25 proof of age scheme
was being operated, as it was stated the staff had no knowledge of
the scheme and there was no evidence that training was given in
breach of condition 9.  No refusals book
existed in breach of condition 10. Condition 12 of the licence
prohibited the sales of single cans of beer, larger or cider and
this appeared to be being breached as the police officer had taken
several photographs where beers and lagers were singularly
priced.
 
11.           
The Committee asked questions of the applicant. It
was confirmed that legal proceedings following a seizure are always
a consideration. Advice was given to all businesses in early 2023,
as there was a high influx of illegal vapes in the UK at the time.
Trading standards confirmed they saw their advisory leaflet on the
shop premises when they visited the first time, and the Premises
licence holder had pointed it out.  The
lack of challenge 25 scheme being operated and the lack of evidence
that the Challenge 25 training was given raised concerns regarding
the protection of children from harm, and the selling of goods to
underage children. It was confirmed on the first occasion that the
premises licence holder had been present at the premises and had
been present while the illegal goods had been seized, but he was
not present at the second inspection.
 
12.           
The representative for the premises licence holder
asked questions of the applicant about the 4 illegal vapes found,
stating they were not illegal as had been supplied by a company.
The Applicant stated they were not given this information to
investigate, so they could not confirm this, but they had found
them to be non-complaint at the time. The representative made clear
that any wines are not classified as beers/ lagers. The panel
confirmed they were only concerned with any breaches of the
premises licence conditions and the illegal goods found on
Premises. 
 
Submissions by the Premises Licence Holder (PLH)
 
13.           
The representative for the PLH stated the personal
licence had been held for 4 years, and there was an understanding
about the licensing objectives. It was stated that the wholesalers
were an issue as Charles House (a wholesaler) are openly selling
goods and therefore it was assumed those goods, particularly the
vapes, were legal. The PLH had tried to ensure the products were
legal and thought they were.
 
14.           
It was confirmed that all the issues had been
rectified, on professional advice being taken, in that training is
logged in a staff manual, an incident book is in place, and
challenge 25 Refusals Log is present. The representative stated
this was not in place before, but everyone can make a
mistake.
 
15.           
The PLH accepted some wrongdoing and stated these
were his mistakes. It was stated he should have been more
responsible and should have co-operated. It was stated his family
depends on the business.
 
16.           
It was proposed that the licence should not be
revoked, but instead a suspension of the premises licence for 3
months imposed. A hard lesson had been learnt.  A new condition was suggested to be placed on the
licence, in that all products should be purchased at AWR with
invoices being available.
 
17.           
Reliance was placed on the fact that there was no
evidence of any underage sales taking place or any single cans of
beer, larger or cider being sold at the Premises, and the alcohol
ABV was within the limits specified in condition 11.
 
18.           
The PLH was questioned by the panel members and it
was established that the PLH did not have another business. The PLH
had purchased medicines, but was not a medical professional to be
able to check the welfare of consumers before selling them
medication. The PLH stated this was his mistake in having the
products, but he had purchased them at Charles House, which was a
reputable source, and even issued a receipt. Products are fully
accessible and therefore he had deemed them to be not illegal
products, as it is not a hidden shop. His customers were asking for
the items, but he accepted he did not do his own checks on the
products. On being questioned about what actions he took after
being found with the illegal vapes the first time and being issued
a caution, the PLH stated he then made sure the vapes were
legal. 
 
19.           
On the single pricing of beers and lagers, he stated
he was not selling single cans but sometimes the cans were sold in
2’s or 3’s, hence the pricing applied to individual
cans. Trading standards officers confirmed single cans did go
through the till without any prompts/ restrictions being displayed
to staff, as this check had been undertaken at the
inspection.
 
20.           
It was accepted there were no training logs kept
before and no incident/refusals log kept in breach of conditions 6
and 10 of the licence. It was stated that training was given, but
it was not recorded. It appeared the PLH had not read his licence
conditions, as upon being questioned, he accepted this. He said he
is learning from this, it is his first business, and he is doing
his best. He confirmed that the CCTV was operational and working at
the time of the visit, and he could not answer why his employee
said that he was unable to work the CCTV system.
 
21.           
The applicant asked questions of the PLH and the PLH
confirmed the business name Elux was not connected to the meaning
given to the word in Turkey, where Elux refers to e-liquids. It was
confirmed that the PLH did not have a pharmaceutical licence or a
prescription licence. It was accepted that the PLH had signed and
accepted a caution and understood it. He stated he shopped in
Charles House as they sold building supplies/ tools/ buckets, and
other household items that he also stocked in his shop.  
 
Summing up by the parties
 
22.           
In summing up, the Applicant
said they, the PLH, had provided excuses today, but there was a
clear disregard for licensing conditions and the law. The PLH must
have had training to be a designated premises supervisor, but had
not adhered to what he had been taught. He had been given
opportunities, and there was no confidence that he could run a
legitimate business or was a fit and proper person to hold a
licence and uphold the licensing objectives.
 
23.           
The PLH representative stated that there was no
evidence of underage sales, but there was evidence of honesty. He
has accepted his mistakes, so the recommendation was to suspend the
licence to allow arrangements to be made for another designated
premises supervisor to be put in place and gain a way forward, with
the suggested conditions.
 
Decision
 
24.           
The licensing panel carefully considered all the
relevant information including:

·       
Written and oral representations

·       
The Licensing Act 2003

·       
The Guidance issued under section 182 of the
Licensing Act 2003, particularly section 11 and
11.27-11.28

·       
Hounslow Council’s Licensing Policy

·       
Human Rights Act 1998

·       
Hounslow’s Cumulative Impact Assessment
(2023)
 
25.           
Having taken all the representations into account,
the statutory provisions and the Revised Guidance issued under
section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s
Licensing Policy, the Panel were satisfied that the application
before them to review the premises licence, had real merit. They
were not satisfied that the PLH understood the obligations under
the Licensing Act 2003, the licensing objectives and in particular
the safeguards of conditions in place on his licence. These
breaches of his licence showed he is not a responsible retailer and
the fact that there were single beer and larger cans/bottles in the
retail premises individually priced would encourage the opportunity
for a customer to purchase single cans which were not allowed under
the premises licence. From the evidence the Panel concluded that
staff and the PLH were not clear on the Challenge 25 procedures and
on how to operate the CCTV. The Challenge 25 scheme and CCTV
systems are important mechanisms to protect children from harm.
Having fully operating CCTV and staff able to access and work the
system was vital for the prevention of crime and disorder and these
were not present on the premises. 
 
26.           
The guidance states criminal activity upon licensed
premises should be treated seriously, specifically mentioning the
sale and storage of smuggled tobacco. In this case the trading
standards officers on inspection found illegal vapes, illegal
chewing tobacco and illegal shisha on the 10th of
September. Although the guidance does not mention offences of
having illegal medicine the panel viewed this offending very
seriously, as the PLH was distributing medication which is the job
of a healthcare professional and may have very serious
repercussions for a consumer.
 
27.           
Furthermore, there was an acceptance by the PLH that
he was not abreast with his licence conditions and did not appear
to appreciate why they were in place. The panel did not accept that
all the actions of the PLH were a mistake, especially as he had
been warned of illegal vapes and given guidance and he had then
been issued with a caution for possessing illegal vapes for
supply.  The panel therefore found he
had previously been warned about illegal products but had continued
to buy illegal products and extended this to medical products and
that therefore upped the level of his offending and ventured into
having other illegal products. It was not good enough for a PLH to
be wiser after the event, as he had a huge responsibility to the
public and was told what was expected of him. Furthermore, it is
incumbent on the PLH to be aware of the conditions on his premises
licence and to ensure he complies with them at all
times.  He had chosen to ignore the law,
rules and advice offered to him. The panel had no confidence in the
PLH, to uphold the licensing objectives in particular the
prevention of crime and disorder and public safety. There was also
a huge concern that the objective relating to the prevention of
harm to children was not being adhered to although it was accepted
there was no specific evidence to show any harm to children had
taken place.
 
28.           
The panel had placed great weight on the evidence of
the singularly priced cans of beer and larger, as photographed by
PC Davies and accepted by the PLH. This action would encourage
consumers to purchase a single can/ bottle and was in direct breach
of condition 12 of the premises licence.  The fact no restriction was on the till, at the
point of sale, gave rise to further serious concerns of practices
at this business. It was also noted these premises were in a
cumulative impact area as outlined in The London Borough of
Hounslow’s Statement of Licensing Policy, section 2.6 and 3.
The Panel took into account page 27 of the policy, para 115:
‘In cases where the crime prevention objective is being
seriously undermined it is expected that revocation of the premises
licence, even in the first instance, will be seriously
considered,’ which reflected the guidance in the revised
guidance issued under s182 of the Licensing Act 2003, at para
11.28, where it was stated ‘responsible authorities will
use the review procedure 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 a licence - even the first instance- should seriously
be considered.’
 
29.           
Given all these issues, the Panel did not consider
the PLH was acting in compliance with his premises licence and
therefore did not believe adding additional conditions would be an
appropriate remedy.  Also, when the
Panel considered this alongside the additional issues of him
purchasing other goods that were illegal for him to sell at the
Premises, the Panel did not have confidence in the PLH’s
ability to comply with his legal obligations and therefore did not
believe suspending the licence for 3 months would be appropriate
either,
 
30.           
The breach of licence conditions, certain practices,
and the criminal activity at the premises were prevalent and could
not be ignored.
 
For
these reasons, the Licensing Panel decided to REVOKE the
Premises Licence. 
 
 
Right to
Appeal
 
31.           
Any party aggrieved with the decision of the
Licensing Panel on one or more grounds set out in Schedule 5 of
Licensing Act 2003 may appeal to the local Magistrate’s Court
within 21 days of notification of this decision.