The Licensing Sub-Committee of Kensington and Chelsea Council met on Thursday, 10 September 2026, to determine a review application for the premises licence of Phat Phuc Noodle Bar. Following deliberation, the committee decided to revoke the premises licence for Phat Phuc Noodle Bar. The decision was based on significant and systemic failures to prevent illegal working, which directly impacted the licensing objective of the prevention of crime and disorder.

Review of Premises Licence for Phat Phuc Noodle Bar

The primary focus of the meeting was the review of the premises licence for Phat Phuc Noodle Bar, located at 250 King's Road, London, SW3 5UE. The review was initiated by the Home Office Immigration Enforcement on the grounds of the prevention of crime and disorder.

Home Office Case:

Jack Fortune and Alex Romano, Licensing Compliance Officers from the Home Office, presented the case for revoking the licence. They detailed an enforcement visit on 19 June 2025, which identified eleven individuals at the premises, seven of whom were found to be working illegally. The Home Office argued that this was not an isolated incident but a pattern of illegal working operating across a substantial proportion of the workforce.

Key points raised by the Home Office included:

• Scale of Illegal Working: Seven illegal workers were found during a single operation, representing over half of the workforce.
• Duration of Employment: Several workers had been employed for periods ranging from months to several years, indicating long-standing arrangements.
• Management Control: Evidence suggested direct control by management, specifically identifying Mr. Joo Kwong Yeow, the premises licence holder and Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS), as being involved in recruitment, hours, duties, and payment.
• Failure in Right to Work Checks: Numerous workers stated that no compliant right-to-work checks were carried out, or only informal checks were done. Some indicated their immigration status was known to management.
• Civil Penalty: A civil penalty of £280,000 was issued to Mr. Yeow, which was upheld after an objection and subsequently paid in full (£196,000). The Home Office stressed that the payment of the penalty did not alter the findings of illegal working.

The Home Office argued that these failures fundamentally undermined the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective and that confidence could not be placed in the future promotion of licensing objectives at the premises. They submitted that revocation was the appropriate and proportionate response.

Premises Licence Holder's Response:

Mr. Joo Kwong Yeow, the premises licence holder, and his son, Daniel Yao, addressed the committee. Mr. Yeow stated that immediately after the Home Office visit, they stopped employing illegal workers and began checking right-to-work documentation. He explained that three of the seven individuals initially identified had since gained the right to work or were in the process of obtaining it. Mr. Yeow also mentioned personal health issues, having been diagnosed with cancer.

Daniel Yao added that they had conducted over 50 compliance checks on staff since the incident and that the business was now aiming for 100% compliance. They confirmed that they now pay all staff via online transfers and use an accountant.

Committee Questions and Deliberations:

The committee members, Councillor Greg Hammond (Chair), Councillor Preeti Hud, and Councillor Jack Reason, questioned both the Home Office representatives and the premises licence holder.

Councillor Hud questioned Mr. Yeow about his awareness of immigration rules and his responsibility, given he had owned the business since 2013. Mr. Yeow accepted full responsibility. Councillor Reason inquired about the lack of confidence in future compliance, given the scale of the issue. Mr. Fortune reiterated that the long-standing nature of the illegal working and the direct management involvement meant that conditions alone would not suffice.

The committee also discussed proposed conditions circulated by Emma Rowland, the legal officer. These included mandatory training for the premises licence holder, a requirement to conduct right-to-work checks, retention of documentation, and ensuring minimum wage payments. Both the Home Office and the premises licence holder indicated they could accept these conditions, although the Home Office maintained their preference for revocation.

Decision:

Following deliberation, the Licensing Sub-Committee decided to revoke the premises licence for Phat Phuc Noodle Bar. The decision was based on the significant and systemic failures to prevent illegal working, which directly impacted the licensing objective of the prevention of crime and disorder. The committee found that the scale and duration of the illegal employment, coupled with the lack of proper right-to-work checks and direct management involvement, demonstrated a serious breach of statutory obligations and undermined confidence in the premises' future compliance.

The committee noted that while the premises licence holder had implemented some new procedures, the severity of the original failings warranted the most serious sanction. The full written decision, including detailed reasons, would be issued within five working days.