Agenda item

Review Application

On 30 May 2023 an application was made by Enfield Council’s Licensing Authority for the review of Premises Licence LN/200501160, at the premises known as and situated at Southgate Food Centre, 30-32 Chase Side, London, N14 5PA.

 

NOTED:

 

1. The Introduction by Ellie Green, Licensing Team Manager, including:

 

a.    The premises, Southgate Food Centre, located at 30-32 Chase Side, London, N14 5PA, has previously had a number of different: names, Premises Licence Holders (PLH), and Designated Premises Supervisors (DPS).

b.    On 21 May 2019, a transfer and vary DPS application which were not subject to any representations, was granted by officers in accordance with delegated powers, naming Mr Baris Kisa, as the Premises Licence Holder (PLH), and the DPS.

c.     On 6 June 2023, Mr Kisa provided up-to-date address details to the Licensing Team, and the premises licence was subsequently amended. The premises has not been subject to any review or formal action under licensing previously.

d.    The current premises licence LN/200501160 permits: The hours the premises are open to the public: 24 hours daily. Supply of alcohol (off supplies only): 24 hours daily. Late night refreshment (indoors): 23:00 to 05:00 daily.

e.    On 30 May 2023 an application was made by Enfield Council’s Licensing Authority for the review of Premises Licence LN/200501160. The review application was submitted as the Licensing Authority believe that the four licensing objectives were being undermined, with a range of unlawful activity taking place at/from the premises, as outlined in the report/agenda pack. 

f.      The review application seeks to revoke the premises licence in its entirety. The review application was advertised in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003. Each of the Responsible Authorities were consulted in respect of the application.

g.    Representations were received from a Southgate Ward Councillor, who was unable to attend and sent her apologies.

h.    If the committee were minded not to revoke the licence, additional conditions were sought, as set out it annex E on page 207 of the report/agenda pack, which had been agreed.

i.      A previous request for adjournment had been refused, following discussions with the Chair and legal adviser, as it was not in the public interest to do so.

j.      In point 1.1 of the report the premises was mistakenly referred to as Maxi, this oversight was acknowledged, and it should have read that Southgate Food Centre was the current name of the premises.

k.     Those in attendance were introduced, the order of representations was outlined, and it was confirmed that all parties would have a limit of 5 minutes to speak.

 

2. In response, the following comments and questions were received:

 

a.    Cllr Smith asked for clarification as to where in the report the representations submitted by the Ward Councillor could be found.

b.    Officers responded that this could be found on page 206 of the agenda pack.

 

3. Charlotte Palmer, Senior Licensing Enforcement Officer, made the following statement:

 

a.    Following a complaint in July 2022 alleging that the premises was selling nitrous oxide, Trading Standards sent an advice letter to the PLH explaining the legislation regarding nitrous oxide and how to prevent illegal sales, and warning that this activity not be repeated.

b.    In October 2022, the premises was visited by Trading Standards Officers and nitrous oxide was found for sale. The licence holder was again advised not to sell it to anyone under the age 18, or anyone who may misuse it. 

c.     In November 2022, a full licence inspection was carried out, and five licence conditions were found not to be being complied with.

d.    The PLH’s home address had changed, and he was advised to contact the licensing team to update his details. The premises licence holder has since updated his home address, but the Licensing Authority have requested evidence that he lives at the address provided, as Companies House lists his country of residence as Wales. Council Tax checks were carried out and found that Mr Baris Kisa was not registered at the address he had provided, nor had he been registered at that address previously. On 23^rd July, an email was received from the licence holder’s agent showing a copy of his personal licence which gave the premises address, and was different to the address he recently provided the licensing team. Still no evidence has been provided showing which address he is registered at. 

e.    Further visits showed that the premises were still stocking nitrous oxide. In January 2023 the Premises Licence Holder was written to, and asked that, to help tackle the problem of anti-social behaviour in the area, they cease selling all nitrous oxide and amend their premises licence conditions to reflect this, but no such application was submitted.

f.      On 10 May 2023, an officer entered the premises to see if they would be sold nitrous oxide, and whether any checks would be carried out by staff to see why they wanted to buy it. The officer was sold a large cannister of nitrous oxide without question. The Licensing Authority believes that this constituted a reckless sale, given the failure to carry out any due diligence checks to ascertain whether the nitrous oxide was likely to be consumed by the person to whom it had been supplied, and that this undermines all four licensing objectives.

g.    Following this test purchase and a further complaint about the sale of nitrous oxide, another full licence inspection was carried out at the premises by council and police licensing officers, on 22^nd May 2023. Several conditions were found not to be being complied with, most of these were the same conditions that were not being complied with when the previous inspection took place. Whilst at the premises, officers noticed: five boxes of nitrous oxide behind the counter (six cannisters per box), four loose cannisters on the shelf opposite, a box of nitrous oxide (six cannisters per box) behind the same counter, and packets of balloons on a shelf under the counter and hanging up opposite the counter. Officers spoke at length to a member of staff about the dangers of nitrous oxide and who it could/could not be sold to; when asked this member of staff said that there was no more nitrous oxide in the premises, but officers found five more boxes of nitrous oxide (six cannister per box) in the toilet area. Whilst in the premises, police officers witnessed a male enter, walk up to the counter, and say to staff “got any balloons mate?” After seeing the police officers, he purchased a packet of balloons from the display, and as he left said “it’s alright mate I’m a chef” and laughed.

h.    Since this review was submitted, further complaints have been received alleging that this premises sells nitrous oxide to those under the age of 18. The reckless sale of nitrous oxide is having a detrimental impact on the local area and all four licensing objectives are being undermined. The Licensing Authority lacks confidence in the ability or willingness of the licence holder and or his staff to uphold the licensing objectives and therefore recommends that the premises licence be revoked.

 

4. In response, the following comments and questions were received:

 

a.    Cllr Savva queried whether the address of the PLH had now been established.

b.    Officers responded that they had not, that on 23 July they had received information about the personal licence issued by another borough, which had the address of the premises; and that when the address provided to the licensing team Enfield for the premises licence was updated this was an address above the premises, but the council records do not show him as living there, and no further communication had been received.

c.     Cllr Smith asked Mr Kisa to explain where he lived.

d.    Mr Kisa replied that he lived in a sharing house, and always lost his letters, and so had given the shop address, to make sure he got them all. He said he did not have proof of his address but had a contract he could provide, but had not put his home address because he wanted to receive all communications at the store premises.

e.    Cllr Savva, Cllr Smith, Charlotte Palmer and Ellie Green reemphasised that the committee wanted to know his residential address and not his correspondence address.

f.      Mr Kisa said that he was in a sharing house in the Shoreditch area, not far away from his shop, but that he could not prove this as he did not use the address a lot, and would sometimes go to see his children.

g.    The legal adviser and Ellie Green expressed that where his ordinary residence was different from the correspondence address, it was required that he provide his residence address. Charlotte Palmer asked if he lived at the address above the premises that he had provided on the premises licence.

h.    Mr Kisa confirmed that he did not, but had an arrangement with the person who lived there, that the post be passed on to him.

i.      Cllr Savva and Ellie Green confirmed that the information would stay confidential. Ellie Green expressed that the point had been made, and they would attempt to obtain this information after the meeting concluded.

 

5. Mr Tuitt, representing Mr Kisa, made the following statement:

 

a.    The premises was a small convenience store selling a wide range of goods. Mr Kisa had accepted the proposed licence condition modifications.

b.    He would not downplay the seriousness of the alleged sale and impact of nitrous oxide. That nitrous oxide was a national problem.

c.     He referred the committee to the guidance issued by the home office under section 182 of the licensing act and in particular paragraph 11.20 of the government guidance, which said that, ‘is it expected that the licensing authority should in so far as is possible seek to establish the cause(s) of concerns that the representations identify’; ‘the remedial action taken should generally be directed at these causes and shall always be no more than appropriate/proportional response to address the causes that instigated the review’.

d.    Mr Kisa was described as having agreed not to sell nitrous oxide, and it was felt that the proposed modifications would adequately promote the licence objectives that the council officers felt were being undermined.

e.    It was conveyed that the alleged breaches of licence conditions had been addressed and the agent, had provided proof of this, with the required notices having been displayed along with additional training for staff.

f.      Mr Tuitt concluded that they did not feel revocation or suspension of the licence were proportionate or necessary, given that they had acknowledged the negative impacts of nitrous oxide being sold at the shop, and had agreed to stop.

 

6. In response, the following comments and questions were received:

 

a.    Cllr Smith asked for clarification from Mr Kisa as to how many times he was visited by council trading standards officers, and why he had not heeded their advice/warnings.

b.    Mr Kisa responded that they had visited three times, that he had not been at the premises for the past 6-7 months, as he was trying to open another business in Stevenage, and he was now trying to take control of the store and stop the unlawful activity. He said he had been at the shop only one-time officers had visited and had explained the issues to his staff, but that they did not always listen.

c.     The Chair queried if he was not aware as to what was happening in the shop whilst he was away, and what the repercussions there were for staff who had not listened.

d.    Mr Kisa said that he was aware, but his staff did not always listen, and that he had moved on most of these staff members who were not following his directions. The Chair reminded Mr Kisa that the issues with the store had been going on for about a year, longer than the 6 months he had not been at the premises. Mr Kisa replied that he had not been at the premises for a period of time, that he had been at the store for the last month, and that he was trying to take control and stop the unlawful activity.

e.    The Chair enquired how Mr Kisa would prevent staff at his store from conducting unlawful activity and breaching the premises licence.

f.      Mr Kisa responded that staff had been selling nitrous oxide for a long time, and that he had heard about this but did not sell it himself. He said that some customers had been using it for themselves and lying about it, and that once he was aware of this, they stopped selling it to them.

g.    The Chair asked when the premises had stopped selling nitrous oxide.

h.    Mr Kisa replied that he had been at the store for the last month, and that he had conveyed to staff previously not to sell to those under 18, not to sell nitrous oxide with balloons, and that if they saw customers inhaling it, not to sell to them again, but that sometimes they did not understand, and they often had new staff joining. The Chair followed up by asking who was employing the new staff. Mr Kisa responded that he hired staff, that he explained the rules to them, that the licensing officer had also conveyed this/these to them but that they did not always listen. The Chair enquired whether the staff members who Mr Kisa had alleged were causing the issues, were still employed at the shop. Mr Kisa said that he had asked some of them to leave, that he now had 5 staff, and that they listened to him and did not do anything wrong.

i.      The Chair asked why a number of the licence conditions had not been complied with.

j.      Mr Kisa said that in the past month he had rectified all of the issues laid out in the report. The Chair asked officers if this could be confirmed. Charlotte Palmer responded that no visits had been made which had not been mentioned in the report. Mr Kisa added that he was now at the premises, and making sure everything was being done correctly. He said that he had closed the other store in Stevenage after the issues started so that he could sort them out.

k.     Ellie Green queried whether Mr Kisa had plans to stay at the premises or open another one.

l.      Mr Kisa replied that he had tried to open another shop which was a big premises and open 13 hours. He said this had caused too much of a headache, and the landlord wanted to take the premises back again, thus he had come back to this premises. Ellie Green enquired why he had not varied the DPS to whoever was running the shop in his absence. Mr Kisa said that he tried to sell the premises, but had lost the other store, so came back. He explained that he had now got everything in place: CCTV, staff training etc.

m.   Cllr Smith asked that given Mr Kisa was the designated premises supervisor with a legal responsibility to supervise the premises, why he had left for several months, not fulfilled his duties, and allowed the issues to occur.

n.    Mr Tuitt responded to say that his client acknowledged his past errors, and the problems which had occurred at the premises, that he had learnt his lesson and did not want to be in this situation again.

o.    The Chair queried whether any local residents had approached Mr Kisa to complain about the issues which had been raised.

p.    Mr Kisa expressed that he had received a couple of complaints from residents, and had tried to explain to them that they were trying to do the right things, i.e., not selling to those under 18. The Chair enquired how much time Mr Kisa spent at the premises. Mr Kisa replied that he was at the premises up to 15 hours every day, and that following the issues, he tried to be present as much as possible.

q.    Charlotte Palmer asked Mr Kisa to confirm that she had completed an inspection on 21 November with him, and had explained everything to him. She added that it was not mentioned at this time that he had been away for 6-7 months.

r.      Mr Kisa confirmed this to be the case, that he had listened to the advice and discussed the circumstances surrounding the premises with her. He said that leaving the premises had not been in his plans, but that he had returned to try and stop the issues.

s.     Charlotte Palmer asked who brought the premise stock.

t.      Mr Kisa responded that he would buy the stock, including during the 6-7 months he was not at the premise, and that sometimes a member of staff would do it on his behalf. Mr Tuitt clarified that it was not that Mr Kisa was not at the premises at all, but that he was not involved in the day to day running during this period as he was focussed on the other business. Mr Kisa said the nitrous oxide would be brought to the shop by a door-to-door peddlers, and that he and his staff would purchase this.

u.    Charlotte Palmer said that if Mr Kisa was attending the premises from time to time during this period, he should have seen the boxes of nitrous oxide in the shop. She said that there was a lot of nitrous oxide, and did Mr Kisa not think it was unusual the amount of stock they were getting through.

v.     Mr Kisa replied that customers would tell them they would use the nitrous oxide for cakes, and that he could not follow them after they left to make sure that this was the case. Mr Tuitt added that nitrous oxide use legitimately was limited, that they were not disputing the situation and harm it causes, and that they had agreed not to sell it anymore. The modification of a condition in which Mr Kisa would be the sole purchaser of alcohol and tobacco stock, from a registered wholesaler, be changed to Mr Kisa being the sole purchaser of stock and to prevent purchases from door-to-door sales, was also discussed. Mr Tuitt said that they would be prepared to accept this condition, but that there was a distinction between stock that would be resold to customers and purchases that would not be sold on. Mr Kisa explained that stock had often been sourced by staff from cash and carries, and all stock was legal sourced.

w.   Cllr Smith asked whether Mr Kisa had personally been ordering any of the nitrous oxide, and how he justified the quantities that were being brought if they did not think it was being sold for unlawful activity.

x.     Mr Kisa confirmed that he had been purchasing some of it, that they had been selling it to over 18s only, that customers had said they were using it for cream/cake, that he had explained this to his staff, and they could not help/ know if customers were lying. Cllr Smith, said that they had to use their judgement, and that it was reckless to not consider what a customer might use the nitrous oxide for.

y.     The Chair queried that in October 2022 officers had told Mr Kisa not to sell nitrous oxide anymore, and yet in May a test purchase had confirmed they were still doing this.

z.     Mr Kisa responded that he would stop this. Charlotte Palmer asked if they were still stocking and selling nitrous oxide. Mr Kisa said that they were not doing much of this, that he had asked the seller to take it back, but they could not, and that they still had some left over, but that they would stop selling it.

 

7. The following closing summaries/ points were made:

 

a.    Charlotte Palmer said that the PLH had failed to demonstrate compliance with the licence conditions, the licensing authority were concerned by the situation regarding the address details provided, and the DPS had not been in day-to-day control of the premises for a period of time. They believed that the premises was recklessly selling nitrous oxide as evidenced by the test purchase which undermines all four of the licensing objectives. Due to the impact on the area and health, the licensing authority have no choice but to recommend that the licence be revoked.

b.    Mr Tuitt expressed that they understood the concerns regarding the activity associated with the premises, and referred the committee back to the extract of home office guidance he had brought their attention to. He confirmed that the premises would cease sales of nitrous oxide and they had addressed the alleged breaches highlighted by the licensing officers. Mr Tuitt felt that revocation of the licence was not proportionate, that Mr Kisa had learnt his lesson, and that nitrous oxide would no longer be sold at the premises.

c.     Ellie Green outlined the options available to the committee to make, and said that she would send the conditions discussed to all parties.

 

The Chair thanked everyone for their time and adjourned the meeting whilst the committee went away to deliberate. Cllrs Savva and Smith would attend all of the deliberations on the decision, but could not attend the presentation of the decision due to other engagements. The Panel retired, with the legal adviser and committee administrators, to consider the application further, and then the meeting reconvened in public.

 

RESOLVED that:

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee RESOLVED that in order to promote the licensing objectives, the licence be REVOKED.

 

The Chair made the following statement:

 

“The Licensing Sub-Committee (LSC) having listened to and considered written and oral submissions made by the, the Licensing Authority, a Southgate Ward Councillor and the named Licence Holder and his Legal Representative in particular the evidence concerning previous activities at the premises concerning breaches to the licensing conditions and the law. The LSC are of the view that the Premises Licence Holder, Mr Baris Kisa, has not been able to demonstrate to the LSC that he has an understanding of the obligations of holding a licence and the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm or demonstrated that he is able to or would be able to adhere to any licensing conditions on the licence or the proposed amendments at pages 120-122, 207-208 of the Document Pack and those discussed during the hearing and provided by the Licensing Officer Annex E Proposed Licensing Conditions Amended. Further, given the past history of a failure to adhere to the imposed licensing conditions and the licensing objectives and the LSC do not consider there is a likelihood of compliance should the licence be permitted to continue to operate.

 

Accordingly, the LSC, on balance, has made the decision to REVOKE the licence held by Mr Kisa, in its entirety.

 

The LSC has taken into account the statutory guidance and in particular the provision highlighted by the Legal Representative for Mr Kisa at paragraph 11.20 therein and the London Borough of Enfield’s Policy Statement in making its decision and has made its decision in promoting all of the four licensing objectives and in particular that of the prevention of crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm.

 

It should be noted that SOUTHGATE FOOD CENTRE can continue to operate at the premises for any unlicensed activities and that there are no limits concerning unlicensed activities.”

 

The Chair thanked everyone for their time and the meeting ended at 15:04.