Decision

Notification of decision following a Licensing Sub-Committee hearing to determine a review application for a premises licence submitted under s51 of the Licensing Act 2003

Premises:      Polski Sklep t/a Your Local Food & Wine, 491B London Road, Isleworth, TW7 4DA (“the Premises”)

Premises Licence Holder:  Your Food and Wine Ltd (the “Licence Holder”)

Applicant:     Hounslow Council Licensing Enforcement, The London Borough of Hounslow

TAKE NOTICE THAT ON Monday 17 August 2026 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:

the licence for the Premises was REVOKED

REASONS:

1)         The Licensing Panel convened in person on 17 August 2026 to determine an application for a review of the Premises Licence for Polski Sklep t/a Your Local Food & Wine, 491B London Road, Isleworth, TW7 4DA (“the Premises”) made under section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003 (“the Act”). 

2)         The Licensing Panel carefully considered all the relevant information including:

·       Written and oral representations made by all the parties

·       The Licensing Act 2003 and the steps appropriate to promote the Licensing Objectives

·       The guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 (“the Statutory Guidance”)

·       Hounslow Council’s Statement Licensing Policy 2025 (“the Council’s Policy”)

·       The Human Rights Act 1998

3)         At the hearing, Mr Bob Dear, a Regulatory Officer in the Council’s Licensing Enforcement team, was in attendance on behalf of the Applicant.

4)         Mr Jigar Priteshkumar Patel attended on behalf of the Premises Licence Holder and was assisted by his agent, Ms Malinda Kaur.

5)         Councillor Tony Louki was in attendance, having made representations in respect of the Application.

6)         The application for the review of the Premises Licence, shown as Appendix A to the Agenda, was submitted by the Licensing Enforcement Department of the London Borough of Hounslow (“the Applicant”), being a responsible authority under section 13(4) of the Act. The application was brought on the basis that the Licence Holder had breached two licensing objectives: the prevention of crime and disorder, and the protection of children from harm.

7)         The existing Licence is shown at Appendix B to the Agenda and allows for the sale of alcohol for consumption off the Premises between 08.00 to midnight daily.

8)         The Panel heard from the Applicant who submitted evidence that the Premises had made a sale of alcohol to a minor and was selling illicit tobacco and vapes; both of which are serious breaches of the licensing objectives.

9)         On 9 April 2026, the Applicant undertook an underage sales exercise, which involved a 15 year-old volunteer who attempted to purchase alcohol from the Premises. The volunteer was allowed to complete the transaction without the staff member asking for proof of age. Thereafter, the Council’s officers entered the Premises and spoke to the member of staff behind the counter to inform them of the offence committed.

10)      The Council’s officers then returned to the Premises for a joint inspection by the Trading Standards and Licensing teams on 28 May 2026. The officers sought to establish who was operating the Premises on a day-to-day basis. At the time, the Premises Licence Holder was Wariam Singh Nagpal, who was also the Designated Premises Supervisor (the “DPS”). The officers met with Mr Patel, who confirmed that that he had been running the Premises since January 2025. During the inspection, an officer looked behind the counter and found cigarettes in non-plain packaging inside a black plastic bag. The officers continued to inspect the Premises and found over 4,532 non-plain packaging cigarettes, 237 non-compliant vapes, and three 50g pouches of rolling tobacco. Some of these illicit products were found in the false ceiling, under the counter, and in the toilet. Additionally, there was no letter of delegated authority from the DPS for those working in the Premises, and it appeared that the DPS was not involved with the day-to-day running of the business.

11)      The Panel heard that after this inspection, applications were made to the Council to transfer the Premises Licence to the current Licence Holder and to appoint Mr Patel as the new DPS. Despite these changes, the Applicant submitted that Mr Patel did not work at the Premises full time. Mr Patel’s brother, Mr Panchal, is also involved in running the business; however, Mr Patel later confirmed that he does not work at the Premises full time either.

12)      Through his representative, Mr Patel accepted that the sale of alcohol to a minor occurred and that illicit tobacco was being sold on the Premises. The Panel heard that since the inspection, changes have been made. These have included the removal of the staff member who completed the underage sale and Mr Patel undergoing training.

13)      In respect of the illicit tobacco, the Panel heard that it had been purchased from a European seller who the previous owner had purchased from in the past and Mr Patel had been under the impression it was lawful. In addition, it was submitted that the vapes were not being sold; the Licence Holder had been made aware that he could not sell single use vapes and they were just stored in a back room. The Panel heard from the Applicant that the sale of illicit tobacco cost the UK taxpayers approximately £2bn in lost tax and, as the Licence Holder was not paying tax on them, that they are often sold for less than half the price of cigarettes from legitimate businesses.

14)      The Licence Holder’s representative asked the Panel to give the Licence Holder another chance to continue to improve the business and a number of conditions were offered including: all alcohol and tobacco would be bought from official sellers in the United Kingdom; all invoices and records would be retained and be made available for inspection by relevant authorities; and all members of staff would hold Personal Licences.

15)      The Panel heard that all members of staff would make themselves available for, and cooperate with, an interview by the Council regarding the breaches and that the administration fee for the Premises Licence had been paid for last year and a payment had been made for this year.

16)      Finally, the Panel heard that there had been no non-compliance since the inspection in May. However, the Applicant clarified that no inspection had taken place since then.

17)      In response to questioning from the Panel, the Licence Holder explained that he acquired the business as a going concern and it was operated remotely at first. Mr Patel was currently on a three-year skilled worker visa and was required to maintain a job in the IT sector; his visa was valid until December 2028. His brother and sister, who also have a hand in the business, work remotely.

18)      When asked about the circumstances in which the business was acquired, the Panel heard that the Licence Holder purchased the business from Mr Nagpal through a third party. Mr Patel’s brother works for this third party. The Licence Holder pays Mr Nagpal a monthly sum, which amounts to between £200 to £300 per day. The Panel asked whether there was a written agreement and was told that there was not, but a stock taking receipt could be produced.

19)      The Licence Holder was asked about the condition to only purchase from an approved wholesaler, which was offered in submissions made by his representative. The Applicant pointed out that the law required that alcohol is purchased from an approved wholesaler. The Licence Holder appreciated the point but said that he had not been in the country for a long period of time and was unaware of the requirement. He had relied on his brother and advice from other shops in the area who said they were purchasing as a group. At this stage, the Applicant asked why the cigarettes were concealed, if the Licence Holder believed that they were being sold lawfully. The response from the Licence Holder was that this was the first time he had purchased the tobacco.

20)      The Licence Holder was asked whether the CCTV in the Premises was functional. The Panel was informed that it was not, but that it was due to be repaired shortly.

21)      The Panel then heard from Councillor Louki who explained that he had been a ward councillor for 12 years. Councillor Louki submitted that the area had a reputation for underage sales of alcohol and selling illegal cigarettes and that the Premises contributed to the problem. One of the licensing objectives is the protection of children from harm and the conduct of the Premises was particularly troubling given the close proximity to a number of high schools and a college. Councillor Louki was concerned that the Licence Holder’s conduct would lead to selling potentially lethal products to children.

22)      Finally, the Panel asked the Applicant and Councillor Louki whether there were any conditions which would satisfy their concerns and allow the business to continue, if the Panel were minded to suspend the licence. The Applicant confirmed that they could not support suspension of the licence. The Applicant also had concerns about the lack of other conditions on the licence, which were not added due to its age. The Applicant was of the view that there were no conditions which would alleviate their concerns. Councillor Louki was of the view that the Premises had failed the neighbourhood and was not a bona fide business. He submitted that the owners were absent from the Premises, had no experience of running a business, and the little experience they did have had been bad. It was submitted that Mr Patel did not deserve a licence, it should be revoked, and an honest business should be allowed to open in its place.

Decision

23)      The Panel were aware of the options available to it. Namely whether to:

a.    Modify the conditions of the existing Licence;

b.    Exclude a licensable activity;

c.     Suspend the Licence; or

d.    Revoke the Licence.

24)      Paragraph 242 of the Council’s Policy states that:

“the Licensing Authority can exercise a range of powers when dealing with a review. In cases where the licensing objective of crime and disorder is being seriously undermined, it is expected that revocation of the premises licence, even in the first instance, will be seriously considered.”

25)      Paragraph 11.23 of the Statutory Guidance states:

“… where premises are found to be trading irresponsibly, the licensing authority should not hesitate, where appropriate to do so, to take tough action to tackle the problems at the premises and, where other measures are deemed insufficient, to revoke the licence.”

26)      Paragraph 11.27 and 11.28 of the Statutory Guidance states:

“11.27 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:

·       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…

·       for the sale or storage of smuggled tobacco and alcohol

1. 11.28 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.”

27)      The Panel carefully considered the representations made about the training Mr Patel had recently undertaken and the licence conditions offered in submissions. The Panel also considered whether there were any other conditions which could be attached to the Premises Licence to uphold the licensing objectives.

28)      The Panel had serious concerns about the Licence Holder’s ability to uphold the licensing objectives or supervise the Premises responsibly. Their conduct had fallen considerably below that expected of a business that held a licence. Furthermore, in the Panel’s view, by selling illicit tobacco and by selling alcohol to underage customers, the Licence Holder had seriously undermined the licensing objectives. The Panel considered that the Licence Holder’s lack of experience did not provide a defence, nor did the fact that the Licence Holder shared the same business practices of other shops in the area.

29)      The Panel considered that allowing the Premises to continue to operate with conditions added to the Licence would not be suitable and, in any event, were conditions required by law. The Licence Holder had the opportunity to take swift action after the incident on 9 April 2026, but there was no tangible evidence of improvement. The fact that illicit tobacco was found at the Premises the following month was concerning as the Licence Holder failed to react appropriately to the initial failing.

30)      The proximity of the Premises to schools and a college heightened the concerns the Panel had as the potential for harm to children was exacerbated by the location. This was because it was likely a larger number of school age children would patronise the Premises and could purchase harmful products.

31)      In addition, the Panel was of the view that the sale of illicit tobacco was undermining other legitimate businesses who paid taxes and priced tobacco products properly, as well as removing tax revenue from HM Treasury.

32)      For these reasons, the Panel considered that suspension of the Licence would not be sufficient, as three months would not be enough time to change the attitude of the business in light of the serious breaches of the licensing objectives and therefore the Panel decided revoking the Premises Licence was a necessary measure.

Right to Appeal

33)      Any party aggrieved with the decision of the Licensing Sub-Committee on one or more grounds set out in schedule 5 of Licensing Act 2003 may appeal to the local Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of notification of this decision.