Agenda item

Application for a new premises licence.

RECEIVED the application made by Mr Ali Serbet for the premises situated at Euro International, 212-214 Chase Side, Enfield, EN2 0QX for a New Premises Licence.

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Ellie Green, Principal Licensing Officer, including:

a.    This was a new premises licence application. At the Licensing Sub Committee (LSC) hearing in December, the applicant Mr Serbet had attended to request an adjournment to allow the applicant to obtain legal advice, which was granted.

b.    A similar premises licence at the premises was surrendered by Mr Hikmet Samsun on 19 October 2019. Mr Serbet had applied for the same hours as the previous licence: opening hours 06:30 to 00:00 and supply of alcohol (off sales) 08:00 to 00:00 daily.

c.    It should be noted that Mr Serbet had former involvement in the premises. This formed the basis of the Licensing Authority and Police’s objections. Those representations were based on the prevention of crime and disorder licensing objective. The Licensing Authority sought additional conditions (set out in Annex 7 of the report) to be included on the licence should LSC be minded to grant the application, and the applicant had agreed to all the conditions proposed.

d.    The applicant had now provided a written representation, set out in Annex 6.

e.    Mr Serbet was in attendance at the hearing, with Mr Ali Hussain of AHS Law. Charlotte Palmer was in attendance, representing the Licensing Authority. PC Karen Staff sent apologies on behalf of the Police, but had no further information to add.

2.    The statement of Mr Hussain on behalf of Mr Serbet, the applicant, including:

a.    The core issue around the application was whether the licensing objectives could be met.

b.    There had been incidents at these and related premises, and the concerns of the Police and Licensing Authority were understood.

c.    He wanted in no way to undermine those concerns, but Mr Serbet had taken advice on and tried to address them so there would not be problems in the future.

d.    The applicant’s representation was highlighted, and it was submitted that going forward the licence could be safely and properly granted.

e.    The 2016 incident was subject to court proceedings and the charges were dismissed in respect of whether Mr Serbet was involved in selling contraband cigarettes. It was asked that undue weight was not placed on those previous matters, which were also some time ago.

f.     In respect of the further incident in August 2018 at the Bush Hill Park premises where non-duty paid cigarettes were found on Mr Serbet; he told authorities at the time that these cigarettes were given to him as a gift by someone who was visiting. The packets were in a carton and Mr Serbet was going to smoke them and not sell them.

g.    In respect of the incident on 3 December 2019, that sale was done by a staff member, Mehmet, and as soon as Mr Serbet was aware of that sale Mehmet was dismissed. In the circumstances Mr Serbet took appropriate action. The sale was made without his knowledge and he made no financial gain from that transaction. Indeed it would be foolish to be involved in illegal selling whilst having a licensing application in process. However, Mr Serbet takes responsibility for those working at the premises and he took appropriate action.

h.    Going forward, all the objections had been considered, and Mr Serbet was committed to complying with all the licence conditions. Ada Consulting had been instructed to provide a training programme and advice on supervision, maintaining registers, etc. Mr Serbet would be supported by Ada Consulting who also had Turkish speakers and could translate documents to ensure Mr Serbet understood what was expected of him. Concerns such as the display of posters had been addressed.

i.      Mr Serbet had invested a considerable amount of time in the business. He was the leaseholder and was responsible for paying the rent and bills. He employed three people at the premises. Mr Serbet was the Designated Premises Supervisor and had another trained employee, Hussain.

j.      All efforts had been made since October in respect of compliance with the licence. Mr Serbet was committed and determined to ensure the business succeeded. The business would be operated within the law and Mr Serbet would meet the licensing objectives. He understood that the licence may be reviewed and revoked otherwise.

3.    Mr Serbet and his representative responded to questions, including:

a.    In response to the Chair’s queries, Mr Hussain clarified that his contact with Ada Consulting had taken place yesterday, but that the company had been instructed by Mr Serbet in October and they had been working together for three months. Mr Hussain had asked and received confirmation about the training provided by Ada Consulting to Mr Serbet.

b.    In response to questions from Charlotte Palmer, Senior Licensing Enforcement Officer, Mr Serbet advised that he was present at the premises every morning, and that all the staff at the premises were new and had not been involved in the premises previously.

c.    In response to further questions regarding Mr Serbet’s takeover of the business, he confirmed that he had taken control of the business seven to eight months ago. When asked why the application had not been made earlier than October, and noting that there had been a breach of conditions for several months, Mr Serbet apologised but that those running the premises had run away and left behind bills and no stock. He had given the Police that information. He did not know what he had to do in respect of the licence. When asked specifically about the licence condition mentioning his name, Mr Serbet referred to the 2016 court case, and stated that he had not read the premises licence as he had too many bills to deal with.

d.    In response to further queries as to how the licence could be complied with if Mr Serbet was not aware of its conditions, and how the Licensing Authority could have confidence in him as licence holder, Mr Hussain confirmed that Mr Serbet had to accept that he should not have been at the business, but he had been trying to explain the situation.

4.    The statement of Charlotte Palmer, Senior Licensing Enforcement Officer, on behalf of the Licensing Authority, including:

a.    Although this application was for a new premises licence, Mr Serbet had held the licence previously. That licence was revoked in April 2016 on grounds including that the premises had been found to be selling non-duty paid alcohol and tobacco and breaching other licence conditions.

b.    Mr Serbet had connections to another licensed premises in Bush Hill Park, and in August 2018 was working there when seven packets of non-duty paid cigarettes were found on his person. These were advised to be for personal use, but this was a commercial premises where having those cigarettes would be a silly thing to do, particularly after having been taken to court previously. Mr Serbet appeared at best naïve.

c.    In October 2018 during a further illicit tobacco check, three packets of non-duty paid cigarettes were found in a jacket in the store room and Mr Serbet was working at the premises at the time of the visit.

d.    At a visit by Trading Standards officers on 3 December 2019 a test purchase, asking for ‘cheap tobacco’, was made and a packet of cigarettes which appeared to be non-duty paid was sold by a member of staff that was not Mr Serbet.

e.    The issues in respect of businesses owned by Mr Serbet had led the Licensing Authority to lack confidence in him to hold a licence. The Licensing Authority therefore continued to object to this application in its entirety.

5.    The summary statement by Ellie Green, Principal Licensing Officer, that having heard all the representations it was for the LSC to consider whether the application was appropriate and in support of the licensing objectives. The potential steps the sub committee may be minded to take were set out in the officers’ covering report, along with relevant guidance and policy.

6.    The summary statement of Charlotte Palmer, Senior Licensing Enforcement Officer, that the repeated non-duty paid tobacco seizures had led to the Licensing Authority’s lack of confidence in Mr Serbet to operate a licence and to object to this application.

7.    The summary statement of Mr Ali Hussain on behalf of the applicant that Mr Serbet’s previous incidents could be summed up as silly and naïve. Action had now been taken to ensure compliance with the licence. Mr Serbet had learned his lesson. There had been meetings and discussions and he knew he could not fail in the business as his livelihood depended on it. The licensing conditions had been discussed at length with Mr Serbet and he did understand them.

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 Chairman made the following statement:

“We have listened and read and considered all of the evidence put before us and find we are not persuaded that Mr Serbet has the capability to run any business which involves licensed premises.

Mr Serbet previously ran a business at this site and lost that licence. The licence granted to the new business at that premises, included a condition that Mr Serbet could not be involved in it. When those licence holders left in the summer of 2019, Mr Serbet took over the business in specific breach of that licence condition. Mr Serbet said he didn’t know this. The fact makes the Licensing Sub Committee (LSC) believe Mr Serbet is incapable of running any licensed business in accordance with its conditions.

Further, at another shop owned by Mr Serbet/his company, another staff illegally sold non-duty paid cigarettes. The LSC are persuaded that Mr Serbet lacks the ability even now after training to manage his staff to prevent from doing illegal activity on his premises.”

3.         The Licensing Sub-Committee resolved that the application be refused.