RECORD OF A HEARING FOR A REVIEW OF A PREMISES LICENCE FOR MOOR STORES, 90 LEEDS OLD ROAD, BRADFORD (DOCUMENT “N”)

Commenced:            1130 on 2 March

Adjourned:    1135 on 2 March

Reconvened:            1130 on 13 March

 Adjourned:   1300

  Reconvened:1315

Concluded:   1320

Present:

Members of the Panel:

Bradford District Licensing Panel: Councillors M Slater (Chair), Jamil and Morris

Parties to the Hearing:

Representing the Responsible Authorities Applicant for Review:

Mr Clutterbrook, West Yorkshire Trading Standards Service

Mr Bethell, West Yorkshire Trading Standards Service

Representing the Licensee:

Mr Cordingley, Representing the Licensee

Mr Kang, Licensee and Designated Premises Supervisor

Representations:

The licensing officer in attendance summarised the background to the application and valid representations received as set out in the report.  It was explained that a request for a review had been received from West Yorkshire Trading Standards Service in light of illegal tobacco and age restricted products to minors’ sales that had taken place at the premises.  Members were informed of the relevant Statutory Guidance in relation to reviews arising from the connection with crime and the various options they could consider.   

The West Yorkshire Trading Standards Service (WYTSS) representative explained that during a test purchase operation in December 2015 the sale of cigarettes to a minor had occurred on the premises, which had been dealt with by a caution.  Illicit tobacco had also been found on a number of occasions in 2016 and 2017.  In total six incidents of illegal trading and breaches of Trading Standards legislation had taken place.  The WYTSS representative stated that these serious offences were a blatant disregard of the law and   detrimental to businesses that operated legally, therefore, the revocation of the premises licence was requested.   

In response to questions, the WYTSS representative confirmed that:

·         The underage sale had been dealt with at the time of the offence, however, the incidents of illegal sales were a different matter and no action had been taken at that time.

·         The owner of the business had not changed.

·         An infringement report was a warning letter.

·         No action had been taken in respect of the incidents in 2016 as the issues had progressed.

·         Statements from officers were relied upon.

·         A copy of the infringement report was not available, however, it was a standard letter and would have been sent to the business premises.

·         A caution would have been issued in respect of the underage sale that occurred in 2015.  It was acknowledged that mistakes could be made, however, three test purchases had been undertaken and illicit tobacco had been seized, which was a crime, and this could not be classed as an error of judgement.

The Licensee stated that he had not received a letter or been contacted regarding the visits undertaken at his premises.  He confirmed that he had been informed of the underage sale and had taken robust action at that time.

The Licensee’s representative addressed the Panel and explained that the business was long established and operated by the Licensee who was of good character with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.