The Sub-Committee is asked to determine Uni Food and Wine’s application, taking into account the details in the report and any representations made at this Sub-Committee meeting.

Russell Sharland, Trading Standards Officer, Emilia Wotherspoon, Trading Standards Officer, Simon Mitchell, Trading Standards Officer, and the respondent, Mr. Avtar Singh Lalpurwal and his son joined the meeting.  

 

The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer (RM) rejoined the meeting.

  

The Chair invited the Sub-Committee, officers, and attendees to introduce themselves.  

  

Councillor Muddiman reminded the Sub-Committee that the premises in question lies within her ward but clarified that she had received no presentations regarding this, nor engaged in any communication regarding the application.  

  

The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer (ET) presented the report, notifying members that the Licensing Sub-Committee Hearing is convened to determine an application submitted by Oxfordshire County Council Trading Standards for a review of the Premises Licence in respect of Uni Food & Wine, 19 Park End Street, Oxford. The Sub-Committee understood that the review is required following enforcement actions being taken by Trading Standards Officers in relation to breaches and offences involving tobacco and vape sales, and with breaches of the premises licence issued under the Licensing Act 2003. Relevant evidence is enclosed in appendix 1 and the current premises is enclosed in appendix 2.  

  

The Sub-Committee heard that the premises licence currently permits the following licensable activities: 

  

• Sale of Alcohol (off sales only): Sunday to Saturday: 08:00 hours to 23:00 hours 

 

The Sub-Committee were informed that representations supporting the review were received from the Licensing Authority, Thames Valley Police, and the NHS (public Health), as enclosed in appendixes 3-6. The representations focus on concerns of how the premises licence holder is unable to uphold the licensing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance and public safety. A map detailing the applicant’s premises, and the surrounding area enclosed in appendix 7.  

  

The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer (ET) reminded the Sub-Committee of its responsibilities under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act, noting that: 

  

• The Sub-Committee must consider a fair balance between the interests of the applicant and the rights of local residents. Any decision taken by the Sub-Committee must be necessary and proportionate to the objectives being pursued.  

• Whenever a decision is made under the Licensing Act 2003, members have a duty to act with a view to promoting the licensing objectives. 

• When considering any representations, only those issues relating to the four licensing objectives should be considered and appropriate weight given to the importance and relevance of each representation. 

• In making its decision, the Sub-Committee must also have regard to the Home Office statutory guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s own Statement of Licensing Policy which are enclosed within the report. 

  

The Sub-Committee were also reminded that they must make one of the following decisions which they consider to be appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives: 

  

• To modify the conditions of the licence 

• To exclude a licensable activity from the scope of the licence 

• To remove the designated premises supervisor 

• To suspend the licence for a period not exceeding six months 

• To revoke the licence 

 

The Sub-Committee understood that it may also grant the licence subject to different conditions for different parts of the premises or the different licensable activities. 

  

The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer (ET) reminded the Sub-Committee that the applicant, premises licence holder, or persons making representations have the right of appeal against the decision made.  

  

Trading Standards Officer (RS) summarised the review and why it had been brought to the Sub-Committee. The evidence which breached the licensing objectives was detailed alongside a summary of the alleged criminal offences being considered at the Magistrates Court. The Sub-Committee was reminded that their role is not to determine guilt or innocence in respect of any criminal charges, but to consider whether there have been breaches of the licensing objectives linked to the premises licence in question. 

 

The Trading Standards Officer (RS) described in detail the evidence relating to the review of the premises licence for Uni Food and Wine, as detailed in the report: 

 

• Presence of illegal Snus (oral tobacco).  

• Illegal alcohol sold to minors.  

• Failure to install a panic alarm. 

• Failure to maintain necessary paperwork and records. 

• Failure to make CCTV available on request. 

• Failure to respond to written and verbal warnings. 

  

The Trading Standards Officer (RS) also listed the repeated visits which had been paid by officers and police to the premises since 2015 and the lack of improvements made by the licence owner following each visit, despite offers of help from officers.  

  

The Trading Standards Officer (RS) recommended that the Sub-Committee revoke the premises licence based on the evidence within the review and the pattern of insufficient behaviour.  

  

The Chair thanked the Trading Standards Officer for his representation and comprehensive report and invited Mr. Lalpurwalto address the Sub-Committee.  

  

Mr. Lalpurwal notified the Sub-Committee that his son was present to provide language support throughout his representation. In regards the nicotine found within his premises, he explained that he was unaware of the law around nicotine products and could therefore not be sure that he was selling legal products. The Sub-Committee heard details of the cash and carry suppliers he frequents and the trust he places in the legality of their products. Mr. Lalpurwalalso emphasised his need to make a profit in the context of rising prices.  

  

The Chair reminded Mr. Lalpurwal to focus on the facts within the report. 

  

Mr. Lalpurwal apologised for the breaches to licence conditions and acknowledged the Trading Standards Officers who offered him language support. The Sub-Committee also learned that Mr. Lalpurwalowns other businesses premises for which he often stores stock in the Uni Food and Wine shop before transporting it to the correct premises. In regards alcohol sales, Mr. Lalpurwalexplained that for religious reasons, he does not consume alcohol or tobacco and has not done so for 9 years. 

  

Mr. Lalpurwal requested the trust of the Sub-Committee in believing that he had not intentionally sold alcohol to underage persons and acknowledged that his failure to follow rules around CCTV does not help his case. In regards the requirement for a panic alarm, the Sub-Committee were informed that a booking had now been made to have a panic system fitted at a cost of £470 next week. Mr. Lalpurwalconcluded by emphasising that he was unsure of the legal requirement around nicotine products in the UK but has now learnt this and applies it.  

  

The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer (RM) informed the Sub-Committee that Mr. Lalpurwal has been responsible for the premises since 2013 but has displayed repeated breaches of the conditions attached to the premises licence, most importantly relating to the strength of alcohol on sale. The Licensing Authority has engaged with the premises and other responsible authorities to address these matters, but no resolution was found, and further complaints from members of the public were received. The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer (RM) recommended that the premises licence be revoked.  

  

The Thames Valley Police Licensing Officer detailed to the Sub-Committee that the premises has been a sporadic issue in relation to antisocial behaviour and has previously failed one test purchase and illegally sold alcohol to underage persons on many occasions. The Thames Valley Police Licensing Officer therefore recommended that the premises licence be revoked on the basis that he believed a suspension would not sufficiently address the issues.  

  

The Principal Lead Officer for the Business Regulation Team described instances of persistent non-compliance regarding over stocking and cleaning of the premises, including a mouse infestation. Whilst the mouse infestation was dealt with, members were informed that overstocking has since been an on-going issue despite repeated advice to the premises owner. Due to the need to escalate actions over time, the Principal Lead Officer for the Business Regulation Team also recommended that the premises licence be revoked. 

  

The Sub-Committee had no questions.

  

The Chair invited the Mr. Lalpurwal to make any final representations.  

  

Mr. Lalpurwal’s son informed the Sub-Committee that his father is uneducated and unable to study the legalities of compliance, also noting that he has trusted the word of the sellers he has worked with over long periods. He expressed frustration that Trading Standards Officers have not acted against the larger suppliers of the illegal items, but did acknowledge the issue of underage sales at the Uni Food and Wine premises. He noted that proxy sales are a big problem in Oxford.  

  

The Chair invited the applicant to make any final representations.  

  

The Trading Standards Officer (RS) expressed support for small businesses alongside his responsibility to protect the public and not offer commercial advantages to other businesses who do or not follow the law. The Sub-Committee were reminded of the details and extremity of the breaches of the licence conditions relating to Uni Food and Wine shop.

  

The Senior Licensing Compliance Officer (ET) informed the Sub-Committee that during the process of applying for a premises licence, Mr. Lalpurwalwould have been required to complete training relating to the law around alcohol sales and therefore should understand compliance measures.  

  

The Trading Standards Officers, both Senior Licensing Compliance Officers, the Thames Valley Police Licensing Officer, the Principal Lead Officer for the Business Regulation Team, and Mr. Lalpurwal and his son left the meeting to allow the Sub-Committee to reach a decision.  

  

The Sub-Committee considered: 

• That there had been a repeated failure to comply with licensing conditions despite advice and guidance over a long period of time. 

• That Mr. Lalpurwal had been aware he was breaching the premises licence conditions and breaking the law.  

• The implications of revoking the premises licence: Mr. Lalpurwalwould be able to continue trading products that did not include alcohol.  

• That Mr. Lalpurwal is currently subject to prosecution proceedings and his personal licence may also be removed at a later date via the Courts. 

• That the premises is linked to issues of anti-social behaviour according to the Police.

• That the premises has breached licensing objectives relating to the protection of children, the prevention of crime, and the prevention of public nuisance. 

• That a suspension of the premises licence would likely not be sufficient for addressing the issues. 

  

The Trading Standards Officers, both Senior Licensing Compliance Officers, the Thames Valley Police Licensing Officer, the Principal Lead Officer for the Business Regulation Team, and Mr. Lalpurwal and his son rejoined the meeting.  

  

The Chair delivered the Sub-Committee’s decision.  

  

  

The Sub-Committee resolved to: 

  

• Revoke the premises licence. 

  

  

The Chair explained that this decision was based on the repeated failure to uphold licensing objectives. 

  

The Chair informed Mr Lalpurwal of his right to appeal the decision to the Magistrates Court within 21 days of receiving the decision notice.  

 

The Trading Standards Officers, Mr. Lalpurwal and his son left the meeting.