Decision Maker:

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: April 22, 2025

Purpose:

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.