Agenda item

Application to review a premises licence.

On 14 December 2023, an application was made by the Licensing Authority for a review of the Premises Licence LN/200501812. The review was brought as the premises had been the cause of a statutory noise nuisance and providing music after permitted hours. Other unlawful activities had been witnessed at the premises and the prevention of crime and disorder and public nuisance licensing objectives had been undermined. The Licensing Authority also lacked confidence in those persons named on the licence and those managing the premises, thus full revocation of the premises licence was sought. The review application, supporting documents and additional information are available in the report packs.

 

NOTED:

 

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

 

a.    The committee were to consider a review application of the premises known as The Hyde Arms, 137 Victoria Road, in Edmonton Green Ward.

b.    The Premises Licence Holder (PLH) had been Mr Mansur Duzgun since March 2018.

c.     On 21 December 2023, the Licensing Team received a transfer application for The Hyde Arms, by H&K Elite Limited. The company director for which is Milanova Boginka Petrova. The transfer application was to take immediate effect. However, the Police objected to this application, and a copy of their representation can be found in the report packs. H&K Elite Limited subsequently withdrew this transfer application. As a result of this, the licence reverted back to the previous PLH, namely Mr Mansur Duzgun. No other transfer applications had since been received.

d.    Mr Asen Asenov is the named Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS), and has held this position since 16 June 2023, but had not been at the premises, and no vary DPS applications had been received.

e.    The review application had been brought by the Licensing Authority for a number of reasons, including: the premises had been the cause of statutory noise nuisance and providing music after permitted hours. Other unlawful activities had been witnessed at the premises and the prevention of crime and disorder and public nuisance licensing objectives had been undermined. The Licensing Authority also lacked confidence in those persons named on the licence and those managing the premises, thus full revocation of the premises licence was sought.

f.      Conditions had been presented by the Licensing Authority where the committee were not minded to revoke the licence in full, and can be seen in the report packs.

g.    The Police submitted a representation in support of the review. A copy of the Police representation is produced in the report packs.

h.    The PLH was provided with the review application; no written response was received, but he was present, though had expressed that he was not able to afford the legal representation it was advised he sought.

i.      Those in attendance were introduced, and the order of representations was outlined.

 

2. Victor Ktorakis, Senior Environmental Health Officer, made the following statement:

 

a.    The premises is situated on the corner of a residential road, with residential properties behind, opposite, and adjacent to it. Nearby is a small parade of shops with residential flats above.

b.    22 complaints had been received regarding the premises since the licence had been transferred to Mr Duzgun. Eighteen of these were received within nine months prior to the licencing review application being submitted.

c.     Unauthorised regulated entertainment had been complained about many times and witnessed by officers on four occasions.

d.    The Police had reservations about Mr Duzgun becoming the PLH of the business when he applied to transfer the licence into his name in 2018. These reservations were based on his poor performance at another licensed premises.

e.    Mr Duzgun had to be notified of the complaints and reminded of the relevant conditions attached to this premises licence in 2019.

f.      In 2021 it became apparent that food was being prepared at the premises, despite the premises not being food registered with the council.

g.    In October 2021 out of hours Licensing Enforcement Officers could hear music from the premises from 20 meters away.

h.    In June 2023 an out of hours noise officer investigating a noise complaint visited the premises and witnessed a female customer sniffing something off a plate which she quickly covered when she noticed the officer looking at her. Following this visit, Mr Duzgun was advised of the noise complaints, advised what officers had witnessed at the premises, and reminded of the relevant times and conditions of the licence. He was advised to consider the email as a warning as to future conduct and warned about the possibility of the licence being reviewed. Mr Duzgun was also advised that playing loud music could result in a noise abatement notice being served should the level of music be deemed to be a statutory nuisance.

i.      Also in June 2023, staff at the premises told the Police Safer Neighbourhood Team that the premises was not open to the public, but instead rented out for private parties, and that when they did so, the host would walk away and let what happened happen.

j.      In August 2023, Police discovered a cannabis factory above the licenced premises. As a result, Mr Duzgun was asked to attend a meeting at Edmonton Police Station with the Police Licensing Team. During the meeting Mr Duzgun advised Police that the DPS had disappeared, and the premises was now closed.

k.     On 19 September 2023, Mr Duzgun advised Police that once he knew who his new tenant would be, he would update them with regards to the new DPS.

l.      The premises had since reopened yet no variation of DPS application was received, nor did Mr Duzgun notify the Police of his intention to reopen the business. The meeting with the Police did not improve matters at the premises.

m.   In November 2023, officers witnessed music being played at such a loud level it was deemed to be a statutory nuisance and a noise abatement notice was served. The music was also being provided after the permitted licence hours. Notices were sent to the registered address of the PLH and DPS and both were returned to sender. The Licensing Authority was not notified of a change of address of either the PLH or DPS, despite this being a legal requirement.

n.    Mr Duzgun had allowed the premises to reopen to sell alcohol, even though the DPS was no longer there, and this was a breach of the premises licence condition.

o.    Even after the noise abatement notice was served, further complaints had been received and officers had witnessed music after the licenced hours, most recently at the beginning of December 2023.

p.    On 21 December 2023 a transfer application was submitted by H&K Elite Ltd. A search of Companies House showed that the director of the company is Milanova Boginka Petrova and until 12 November 2023, the company had been known by a different name. The named director is not the individual officers have spoken to about the noise issues or met at the premises. The person in charge of running the premises seems to be the grandson in law, who was one of the three people served the noise abatement notice. If the music on his first night was so loud as to require a noise abatement notice and was after the permitted licence hours, this did not represent a good start for a new operator. 

q.    A full licence inspection carried out on 5 January 2024 demonstrated that licence conditions were being breached, a copy of this report is available in the report packs.

r.      On Friday 26 January 2024, Licensing Enforcement Officers visited the premises at 22:50 and entered the premises which appeared open. Officers noticed a new illuminated sign on the frontage advertising the premises as a coffee shop and restaurant. Four people were setting up the front area of the premises for an alleged birthday party to be held the next day. The tables were covered in tablecloths with matching chairs and coloured bows similar to what would normally be found at a wedding or large function. Officers met the manager Mr Enias Thanasi, who believed the premises licence had already been revoked. No licensable activity was observed at the time of the visit, but alcohol such as spirits were seen on display in the optics.

s.     The officers undertook a licensing inspection with Mr Enias Thanasi. He advised that the street number of the address of the PLH Mr Duzgun was not correct. He also believed that Mr Duzgun was the DPS, but had not seen him. A full licensing inspection was undertaken, and fourteen licensing conditions were found to have been breached; a copy of this report is also available in the report packs.

t.      The Licensing Authority has no confidence in the ability or willingness of Mr Duzgun to uphold the licensing objectives, and as there appears to be no DPS present to take responsibility for the day to day running of the premises, the Licensing Authority feels it has no choice but to recommend the premise licence is revoked.

u.    If the Licensing Sub-Committee were not minded to revoke the licence in its entirety, then the Licensing Authority would recommend that the committee consider suspending the premises licence until such a time that full compliance with the licensing conditions had been demonstrated by the PLH, his address details updated, a new DPS named on the licence, and the licence conditions be amended as shown in Annex E of the report packs.

 

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

 

a.    Cllr Savva asked why it had taken so long for a review of the licence to come to the committee, given the history of complaints.

b.    Officers responded that they were trying to mediate, find a resolution and encourage them to make positive changes, before looking to come to committee recommending the licence be revoked as a last resort. The review had been submitted soon after the noise abatement notice had been served and it took time after the start of a review before it could come to a hearing.

c.     Mr Duzgun asked for clarification as to the timing of the twenty-two complaints received since he had taken over.

d.    Officers advised that eighteen complaints had been received within nine months prior to the review application being submitted.

e.    The Chair asked whether Mr Duzgun knew what was happening at the premises.

f.      Mr Duzgun replied that the property had been rented out for many years, and that when he was made aware of complaints, he tried to communicate these to those occupying the premises.

 

4. Derek Ewart, Police Officer, made the following statement:

 

a.    The Police support the review brought by the Local Authority on the grounds that The Hyde Arms, have an extensive history of complaints over the past four years, totalling forty-eight, occurring under the ownership of Mr Duzgun.

b.    Noise complaints had been received alleging the premises had been playing loud music, customers had been arguing and fights taking place often at 2-3am in the morning, and as late as 5am, and occurring six times a week on occasion.

c.     Reports of gambling taking place in the basement had been received, despite this not being a part of the licence at that time.

d.    A cannabis factory was discovered above the premises by Police on 5 August 2023, and this matter was still being investigated with no suspects having been arrested.

e.    Old cultivation cannabis equipment had been found behind the premises in the rubbish, which had been linked to staff at the premises in the past, dating back to 2021. This shows a link between the cannabis factory being discovered and how long this had potentially been going on at the premises.

f.      The premises had a catalogue of known licensing issues and a history of non-compliance. Noise complaints among other issues/events, as mentioned, were numerous.

g.    Mr Duzgun had had multiple interactions with Police and the Local Authority Licensing and Noise teams, all of which despite advice, had resulted in no change in the mismanagement of the premises, continued breaches and lack of upholding the licensing objectives.

h.    Mr Duzgun had for an extended period of time said that he had left the management of the premises to third parties, and endeavoured to distance himself from breaches and mismanagement.

i.      On visits to the premises, when asked, staff had advised that Mr Duzgun was responsible for the running of the premises, but was never actively running the premises on a day-to-day basis; having sub-let the premises to third parties who were effectively acting as a front in his name only.

j.      Despite being named on the licence, Mr Duzgun had very little to do with the running of the business. When requested, he had attended meetings, but had never been seen working at the premises he was connected with; instead, he appeared to be the landlord with tenants running the business.

k.     Dates of incidents had been detailed in the Local Authority representations; therefore, the Police would not duplicate these entries.

l.      On 2 January 2024, a premises licence transfer request had been submitted by Mr Duzgun to change the licence holder to a limited company. Police objected to this transfer as it was believed that the application was designed to give the impression of the removal of the current PLH, Mr Duzgun, in an attempt to negate the review procedure and to picture the premises as under new management.

m.   The Police support the review submitted by the Local Authority and made representations to request full revocation of the premises licence. As stated by the Licensing Enforcement Team, it is not believed that Mr Duzgun was able to uphold the licensing objectives. The Police took this view on the grounds of the prevention of crime and disorder objectives and the prevention of public nuisance.

 

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

 

a.    Mr Duzgun asked for clarification as to the historic instance of cannabis being found on the premises.

b.    The Police responded that this was found in 2021, within the confines of the premises, inside the bin area on the premises land.

 

6. Mr Duzgun, The Hyde Arms PLH, made the following statement:

 

a.    He owned the Hyde Arms premises but had been renting it out for many years, evidence/documentation of this, for instance business rates, waste collection etc. was available at the Council.

b.    He had not had the opportunity to put a bundle/response together, as he had been largely working abroad over the past few years.

c.     Of the twenty-two complaints received since he had taken over the licence, the majority had taken place within nine months prior to the licence review being submitted, which went back to around February 2023. Prior to this only four complaints had been received in five years which was described as good for a public house, given they always had incidents. The premises had always tried its best to stick to the licencing objectives.  

d.    The other premises he had dealings with was also rented, and a condition arising from a Licensing Sub-Committee hearing was that he was not involved in the running of that business. He had always tried to communicate with the Licensing Authority over any issues at his premises.

e.    Last year, since February 2023, under the management of the DPS, Mr Asen Asenov, there had been an escalation in issues and complaints, which Mr Duzgun had investigated.

f.      In the instance of a customer having been witnessed sniffing something off the table, he had looked at the CCTV and could not see anything clear, but wondered why officers present did not escalate the issue at the time.

g.    The DPS, Mr Asen Asenov, had disappeared since August 2023 following the discovery of a cannabis factory above the premises, and since this time the premises had been closed.

h.    A meeting had taken place with the Police, and Mr Duzgun had gone back to them on 19 September 2023. 

 

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

 

a.    The Chair asked why the PLH’s change of address had not been updated. Mr Duzgun responded that his address had not changed. Officers advised that a letter sent to Mr Duzgun had been returned as though he was not registered as living at the address. Mr Duzgun replied that there were two other properties at this address, and it was possible the letter had gone to one of them by mistake, but that it was not delivered to him, and he had not changed address.

b.    Cllr Dey asked who the premises DPS was. Mr Duzgun responded that since August 2023 the business was closed, and on 1 November he had sold the business on, with Mr Enias Thanasi looking after it. Mr Duzgun had been away, but when he returned in late December, he had looked to transfer the licence, which was objected to by the Police. Mr Duzgun expressed that beyond his name still being on the premises licence, he had nothing to do with the business, and would be happy to relinquish the licence, and have it be for Mr Enias Thanasi to make a new application. Since 1 November he could not comment on anything that had happened at the premises, and he had not changed his address, or he would have let the Licensing Authority know. Officers confirmed that Mr Duzgun was the PLH not the DPS, which was Mr Asen Asenov.

c.     Cllr Dey queried, given the number of conditions that were not being complied with, why when given warning by officers, did Mr Duzgun not act to rectify the issues. Mr Duzgun advised that the majority of the issues had been from February onwards, and he had been informed of the complaints around April-June. He added that when he was in the country, he attended the premises, and that from August, following the discovery of a cannabis factory, the premises had been closed. He had since also found new tenants and sold the business.

d.    Ellie Green asked when Mr Enias Thanasi had taken over the business. Mr Duzgun replied that this had taken place from 1 November 2023, and he had made clear to Mr Thanasi that he would need to apply for the licence.

e.    Ellie Green enquired why Mr Duzgun had not asked his previous tenants to transfer the licence. Mr Duzgun responded that he had leased the premises to Mr Asen Asenov on 1-year leases, that he looked at how the business was being run, and Mr Asenov had moved on last year. Mr Asenov was said to have been this licence holder in 2020, and was present again from January 2022. Mr Duzgun added that when the cannabis factory was discovered above the premises, he had gone out of his way to provide CCTV. Mr Duzgun said there had been a survey on the premises in April 2023 which had not found the cannabis factory.

f.      The Chair asked if Mr Duzgun was aware of the issues with the premises from August onwards. Mr Duzgun advised that from August to 1 November the premises had been shut whilst he found a new tenant, had advised Mr Enias Thanasi to apply for the licence, and tried to communicate any complaints received from that point on to Mr Thanasi. Mr Duzgun reiterated that he was happy to give up the licence, and the business was now Mr Thanasi’s responsibility.

g.    The Chair queried whether Mr Duzgun had notified the Licensing Authority that he had sold the business. Officers replied that Mr Duzgun was still the PLH, and until a transfer application was received, Mr Duzgun was responsible for the premises, and that if this was not the case, the licence should be transferred.

h.    The Chair enquired why the licence had not been transferred. Mr Duzgun responded that at his first opportunity after returning to the UK, he had worked to get the transfer application submitted, but this was refused/objected to. Officers said that Mr Enias Thanasi’s name had not appeared on the application, the transfer application was instead for H&K Elite Ltd, which he was not the director of. Mr Duzgun responded that he believed this was the name he was going to trade under, and if he was not the director of this company, this was Mr Thanasi’s mistake/issue. Mr Duzgun reiterated that had no affiliation with the premises.

i.      Officers asked why Mr Duzgun had not surrendered his licence. Mr Duzgun replied that he was not aware the premises had reopened and was receiving complaints, and when he phoned the Licensing Authority upon returning to the UK, he was advised to transfer the licence. Officers added that the Licensing Officers would not have been aware of the complaints, that there were separate enforcement and processing teams, and they would have to offer the same advice to Mr Duzgun as they would for any other premises owner. The Council’s legal adviser made the point that as the PLH, Mr Duzgun was still responsible for the business and could have, but did not take the opportunity to surrender the licence. 

j.      Officers queried what checks Mr Duzgun had in place before he took on tenants who would be undertaking licensable activity. Mr Duzgun advised that he conducted standard landlords, accounting and solicitors checks, all of his tenants had passed. Mr Duzgun reiterated that he did not know the premises had reopened in November, and that he was not involved in the running of the business.

k.     Cllr Savva asked how and when Mr Duzgun became aware of the cannabis factory. Mr Duzgun responded that he was made aware by neighbours of the premises, who had phoned him to say Police were outside the premises; he then attended, and Police informed him that there was a cannabis factory.

l.      Cllr Savva felt that officers had given Mr Duzgun fair warning/ notice of the issues and he had time to rectify them.

m.   Cllr Dey enquired again why Mr Duzgun had not surrendered his licence. Mr Duzgun replied that when he had spoken to Mr Enias Thanasi, he had said that he would not be opening for a few months, and so did not believe there was a rush, and that once he had returned to the UK, he made the transfer application.

n.    Officers expressed that it was worrying for a PLH not to know when their premises was open. Mr Duzgun apologies for this.

o.    Cllr Dey sought confirmation that Mr Duzgun was happy to give up the licence. Mr Duzgun confirmed this to be the case. He said it should be for Mr Enias Thanasi to submit his own/ a new application, and that he was not aware of the issues which started around February until around April-May.

p.    Officers conveyed that they had not previously received an offer of licence surrender. Mr Duzgun said he did not have the chance to send anything over to them as he had been working abroad.

q.    The Chair felt that Mr Duzgun did not understand his responsibilities as a licence holder. Mr Duzgun expressed that he did, that the premises was being rented out, that prior to February 2023 there were no real issues, and that for a public house this was very impressive.

 

8. The following closing summaries/ points were made:

 

a.    Ellie Green outlined the options available to Members of the committee to make, and directed them to the relevant guidance.

b.    Victor Ktorakis confirmed that he had nothing further to add.

c.     Derek Ewart reiterated the Police position that the premises was a beacon for public nuisance, crime and disorder; they were of the belief that the PLH was completely disregarding the conditions of his licence, and the licensing objectives were not being upheld, as had been illustrated. Police had taken steps to engage with the owner and gave opportunities for them to turn the issues around, but the PLH had not acted upon this. If the premises were allowed to continue trading it is the belief of the Police that breaches of the Licensing Act and a clear nuisance to the public will continue, and therefore ask that the sub-committee revoke the premises licence, to prevent the continued disregard for the licensing objectives.

d.    Mr Duzgun expressed that he just wanted to get his name off the licence.

e.    Cllr Bedekova made clear that Mr Duzgun had had the opportunity to surrender his licence which he had not done. Mr Duzgun accepted this.

 

The Chair thanked everyone for their time and adjourned the meeting at 10:52, while the committee went away to deliberate. The Panel retired with the legal adviser and committee administrator to consider the application further, and then the meeting reconvened in public at 11:30.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee RESOLVED that it considers it to be appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives to revoke the licence.

 

The Chair made the following statement:

 

“The Licensing Sub-Committee (LSC) have listened to and considered written and oral submissions made by the Licensing Authority, the Metropolitan Police and the premises licence holder, Mr Mansur Duzgun. In particular the evidence concerning previous activities at the premises concerning breaches of the licence conditions and the law. The LSC are of the view that the premises licence holder, Mr Mansur Duzgun, 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, in particular the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance. Nor has he demonstrated that he is able to, or would be able to, adhere to any licence conditions. Further, given the past history of a failure to adhere to the imposed licence conditions and the licensing objectives, the LSC do not consider there is a likelihood of compliance, should the licence be permitted to continue to operate. It has been noted by the LSC that Mr Mansur Duzgun set out that he was happy to surrender the licence.

 

Accordingly, the LSC, on balance, has made the decision to REVOKE THE LICENCE held by Mr Mansur Duzgun in its entirety.

 

The LSC has taken into account the statutory guidance and in particular, the provision at paragraph 11.20 regarding the causes of concern raised in the representations and the London Borough of Enfield’s Policy Statement. It has made its decision in promoting all of the four licensing objectives and in particular that of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance.

 

It should be noted that The Hyde Arms 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 adjourned the meeting following the completion of item 4 at 11:33, the meeting resumed at 13:30 for item 5.