The Licensing Sub-Committee of Havering Council met on Wednesday 11 March 2026 to consider an application to review the premises licence for Neyzen Restaurant. Following evidence presented by the Home Office Immigration Department regarding illegal working and exploitative conditions at the premises, the committee decided to revoke the licence.

Review of Premises Licence for Neyzen Restaurant

The primary focus of the meeting was an application by the Home Office Immigration Department to review the premises licence for Neyzen Restaurant, located at 290 North Street, Romford. The Home Office, acting as a responsible authority under the Licensing Act 2003[^1], submitted the application following an immigration enforcement visit on 1 May 2025.

Paul Jones, the Licensing Officer, presented the report, outlining that the application was made due to concerns that the licence holder had failed to uphold the licensing objective of the prevention of crime and disorder, specifically citing the identification of illegal working at the premises. The Home Office representative, Thomas Marlowe, detailed the findings of the enforcement visit, stating that two individuals were found working illegally at the restaurant. Both individuals admitted to having no right to work in the UK and that their employer was aware of this. One worker had been paid in cash with no tax or national insurance contributions, and the other was also working regular shifts without the correct immigration status.

Further concerns were raised regarding an outbuilding at the rear of the premises containing a mattress, bedding, and heating equipment, which was identified as potentially unsafe and exploitative accommodation for one of the workers. This raised suspicions of labour exploitation and potential modern-day slavery. A civil penalty of £80,000 was issued to HAZ 21 Limited, the company associated with the premises, which remained unpaid.

Mr. Marlowe highlighted that the statutory guidance under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 states that employing individuals disqualified from working due to their immigration status must be treated particularly seriously, and revocation should be considered even on a first occasion. He also pointed out inconsistencies in the licence holder's explanation regarding the leasing of the premises to HAZ 21 Limited, noting that two different and contradictory tenancy agreements were presented. Companies House records also indicated a close link between the licence holder and individuals connected to HAZ 21 Limited, undermining the claim of an independent operator.

Badrul Haq, the licence holder and Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS), represented by Rashid Khan, stated that he was merely the premises licence holder and did not involve himself in the day-to-day activities. He explained that due to health complications, he had granted a fixed-term tenancy to HAZ 21 Limited. He claimed to have since terminated this tenancy due to the breaches discovered and had installed CCTV.

However, Councillor Philippa Crowder, Chair of the Licensing Sub-Committee, questioned Mr. Haq's understanding of his responsibilities, noting that his responses regarding the licensing objectives were vague. Councillor Christine Smith and Councillor Jane Keane also expressed concerns about the licence holder's lack of direct involvement and understanding of his legal obligations. Mr. Jones, the Licensing Officer, clarified that a premises licence holder and DPS are legally responsible for promoting the licensing objectives and cannot delegate this duty.

After considering all representations, the Sub-Committee, assisted by their legal advisor, decided to revoke the premises licence for Neyzen Restaurant. The decision was based on the evidence of illegal working, exploitative conditions, public safety risks, inconsistencies in the licence holder's explanations, and the overall lack of confidence in his ability to uphold the licensing objectives. Mr. Haq was informed that he would receive written notice of the decision within five working days and has 21 days to appeal to the Magistrates' Court.