Agenda item

Application for review of Club Premises Certificate.

Councillor Levy welcomed members of PEDSA to the meeting and explained the order of the meeting.  Declarations of Interest were noted (Please see under item 2)

RECEIVED the application made by Mr Bill Haydes for a review of the Club Premises Certificate held by Ponders End Smallholders Association at the premises known as and situated at Ponders End Smallholders Association, 82A Church Road, Enfield, EN3 4NU.

NOTED

1.The introductory statement of Ellie Green, Principal Licensing Officer, including

1. The review application is being made by Mr Bill Haydes, who had been a member of the club (PEDSA) for the review of the Premises Certificate.
2. The application relates to the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective and is made on grounds of allegations that the club is carrying on illegal financial activity. The application and grounds for review was shown at p61 of the agenda pack.  
3. That the review was also originally based on the public nuisance licensing objective but this claim had now been withdrawn.
4. Representation of the Licensing Enforcement Officer, Charlotte Palmer was included at p505 of the agenda and Mr Victor Ktorakis was here on behalf of the Licensing Authority.
5. Additional information relating to independent legal advice is given at p7 of the supplementary agenda.
6. The applicant Mr Haydes, together with Mr Watson and Ms Nichols (who refers to themselves as the ‘New Committee’) are in attendance and so too is Mr Corbett who is representing PEDSA, the certificate holder.

2. The statement of Mr Haydes, the applicant together with Ms V Nichols and Mr Watson including:

1. The application relates to the prevention of crime and disorder – reference was made to the Application for Review documents, shown at Annex 6 which refers to non-compliance of the Licensing Act 2003.
2. Members of PEDSA had not been given information about the finances of the club.
3. A fine had been made regarding late submission of accounts but this had not been disclosed to members.
4. The balance sheets and financial statements for the club should have been disclosed before the club’s AGM and an annual return should have been submitted to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

3. The applicant together with Ms V Nichols and Mr Watson responded to questions including:

1. It was questioned whether the applicant considers that because the club had not complied with its own rules it should not be considered as a valid club. Mr Watson agreed and referred to the fact that the disclosure of financial information had not been forthcoming.
2. When asked by Cllr Levy whether they considered themselves to be members of PEDSA they answered yes.
3. Confirmed that PEDSA financial statements were obtained by purchase from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).
4. Acknowledged that Annex 11 (supplementary agenda) from the FCA stated that the society had complied with the requirement to submit annual returns and accounts however the 2016 return was now overdue.
5. It was asked why this Licensing Sub Committee was being asked to adjudicate between one group of people against another and whether it may have made more sense to try other arbitration sources rather than asking for the premises certificate to be revoked?  it was answered that financial information had not been disclosed and although FCA now say that only the 2016 financial records are outstanding previously financial information had not been disclosed. 
6. When asked how PEDSA is organised it was stated that it was divided between those that are full members and those that are only members of the clubhouse.
7. When asked what may be the short term and long term consequences of reviewing the certificate it was answered by Ms Nicholls that it may be necessary to look at alternative ways of dealing with the club house such as no longer selling alcohol.
8. Catriona McFarlane mentioned that the club may wish to surrender the Club premises Certificate and instead apply for a Premises Licence in which case there would be no requirement for the Committee to demonstrate that they meet the qualifying club criteria.  It was asked if this group had obtained legal advice and this was answered in the negative.

3. The statement of Viktor Ktorakis, on behalf of the Licensing Authority including

1. This was a complex case, it is not for this Committee to decide whether the club is making a profit or loss.
2. Evidence suggests that PEDSA is not complying with its own club Rules and that the current rules do not meet the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003.
3. It would be necessary for the Rules to be updated within a 6 week deadline and to the satisfaction of the Licensing Authority then the Licensing Authority would be satisfied that the club meets the requirements of a ‘qualifying club‘ and would withdraw its representation supporting the review application.

Councillor Levy asked if a six week period was appropriate for making changes and it was agreed that it was.

4. Statement of the Premises Certificate Holder -  Mr Corbett (PEDSA) including -

a.    Disputes that Mr Haydes,  Ms V Nichols and Mr Watson are members of the association (PEDSA) Mr Corbett referred to the legal advice given in Annex 10 (page 7 of the supplementary agenda) that the ‘new committee’ has no legal standing as they were not elected during an AGM and they have failed to pay their subscription fees.

b.    There is only one Committee for PEDSA i.e there are not different ones for the Clubhouse and for the Allotments. They had been going as one association since the 1920’s.

5. The Premises Certificate Holder together with members of PEDSA responded to questions as follows

1. In response to a question about how the Committee had failed to meet the club rules regarding the submission of accounts. It was answered that as soon as the Committee were aware that it was necessary for accounts to be submitted to the FCA or a fine would be incurred then they rushed to get this done.
2. Councillor Levy asked if the association had considered the possibility of surrendering the Club Premises Certificate and instead applying for a Premises Licence, Mr Corbett said the club members had not requested this.
3. It was agreed that the present club ‘Rules’ were outdated and would be updated, Mr Corbett was fully aware of the time frame to do this.
4. Confirmed that all other licences as required were held by the club.
5. The review application relates to the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective. It was queried why the club had taken so long to publish accounts.  It was acknowledged that there had been failures in the past but that when it was known that accounts had to be submitted to the FCA then this was done as soon as possible.

6. The summary statement of Ellie Green, Principal Licensing Officer including:

Having heard all the representations, it was for the Licensing Sub-Committee to consider the steps listed below to be appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives:

·         to modify the conditions of the certificate;

·         to exclude as qualifying club activity from  the scope of the certificate;

·         to suspend the certificate for a period not exceeding three months;

·         to withdraw the certificate;

·         to decide that the licensing review was not made out.

7. The summary statement of the Applicant including;

1. The club was in breach of its loan agreement with Greene King as it was obtaining goods from other suppliers.
2. That an AGM was not being held annually by PEDSA
3. Members of the club do not know if fines had been paid to the FCA and for how much
4. That there was no official treasurer for the club only a bookkeeper. This had led to a lack of expertise and the reason why annual returns have not been submitted in time.

8. The summary statement of the Premises Certificate Holder including;

1. There was an oversight in submitting accounts to the FCA but as soon as this was apparent it was arranged for this to be done as quickly as possible. They were now compliant.
2. There is no requirement for the club to have a Treasurer, instead they  have a bookkeeper.

1.     Viktor Ktorakis, on behalf of the Licensing Authority did not wish to make a summary statement.

RESOLVED that

1.         In accordance with the principles of Section 100(a) of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the press and public from the meeting for this item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act.

The Panel retired, with the legal representative and committee administrator, to consider the application further and then the meeting reconvened in public.

2.         The Licensing Sub-Committee RESOLVED that the Licensing review was not made out

3.         The Chairman made the following statement

Having considered all the submissions written and oral, from all parties, the Licensing Sub- Committee (LSC) determined that on balance, the review case brought by Mr Bill Haydes was not made out on the grounds of the sole licensing objective in contention – being prevention of crime and disorder (PCD).

The only allegation of criminal wrong doing seems to be that the Club had been convicted of specifically failing to file their audited accounts with the Financial Authority, on time and over a number of years.

Whilst the LSC considers this to be a serious failure, undermining to a certain degree our confidence in the organisation, the FCA itself states that Ponders End Smallholders Association (PEDSA) is now up to date with the exception of the 2016 accounts – which, as of today, are currently sixteen days late.

On this basis, the LSC is satisfied that the PCD Licensing Objective is not undermined sufficiently that it needs to take any of the steps available to it appropriate for the better promotion of the licensing objectives under the Licensing Act 2003.

We note that the Licensing Authority (LA), as part of the review, has separately considered and is still considering the issue of whether the PEDSA meets the Club Premises Certificate (CPC) criteria; and have in fact already given the club clear advice set against a timetable to resolve these issues to its – the Licensing Authority’s – satisfaction.  The implications for the validity of the CPC and the qualification status of the club as a whole, as well as alternative licensing options, were noted from the written submissions, and reiterated by questions raised during the hearing.

The Licensing Sub-Committee is not minded to take any further steps in this regard, as the Licensing Authority has the powers to deal with this situation.

Advisory Note

The Licensing Sub Committee (LSC) was very disappointed to note there is a deep rooted and acrimonious dispute of longstanding between current and future members of the Ponders End Smallholders Association (PEDSA).  However, all of the points in dispute between the respective parties, some of which played out during the hearing, are not those upon which the LSC is able to adjudicate.

However, the LSC recommends that the disputing factions seek to resolve their issues for the benefit of and in the best interests of all members of the Smallholders Association – which, after all, has managed to succeed for almost 100 years.  We urge both parties before us today, going forward, to work collectively in the best interests of the Club and all of its members, and to do this as smoothly and effectively as possible without needing to involve the Metropolitan Police Service or the Licensing Authority beyond the administrative relationship to do with the current Club Premises Certificate and/ or any future Premises Licence as may be applied for.