Licensing Act Sub-Committee - Tuesday 19 August 2025, 12:00pm - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting

Licensing Act Sub-Committee
Tuesday, 19th August 2025 at 12:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 

Welcome to Folkestone and Hythe District Council's Webcast Player.

 

UPDATE - PLEASE NOTE, MEETINGS OF THE JOINT TRANSPORTATION BOARD AND FOLKESTONE AND HYTHE DISTRICT AND PARISH COUNCILS' JOINT COMMITTEE WILL BE STREAMED LIVE TO YOUTUBE AT: bit.ly/YouTubeMeetings. 


The webcast should start automatically for you, and you can jump to specific points of interest within the meeting by selecting the agenda point or the speaker that you are interested in, simply by clicking the tabs above this message. You can also view any presentations used in the meeting by clicking the presentations tab. We hope you find the webcast interesting and informative.

 

Please note, although officers can be heard when they are speaking at meetings, they will not be filmed.

 

At the conclusion of a meeting, the webcast can take time to 'archive'.  You will not be able to view the webcast until the archiving process is complete.  This is usually within 24 hours of the meeting.

Share this agenda point
  1. Microphone A
  2. Cllr Gary Fuller
  3. Cllr Rebecca Shoob
  4. Cllr Tony Cooper
  5. Microphone A
  6. Cllr Tony Cooper
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Tony Cooper
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Tony Cooper
  2. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  3. Cllr Tony Cooper
  4. Cllr Tony Cooper
  5. Microphone B
  6. Cllr Tony Cooper
Share this agenda point
  1. Microphone B
  2. Microphone D
  3. Microphone C
  4. Cllr Gary Fuller
  5. Cllr Tony Cooper
  6. Cllr Gary Fuller
  7. Cllr Tony Cooper
  8. Microphone B
  9. Cllr Tony Cooper
  10. SPEAKER
  11. Cllr Tony Cooper
  12. SPEAKER
  13. SPEAKER
  14. Microphone C
  15. Cllr Tony Cooper
  16. Cllr Gary Fuller
  17. SPEAKER
  18. Cllr Gary Fuller
  19. SPEAKER
  20. Cllr Tony Cooper
  21. SPEAKER
  22. Microphone C
  23. SPEAKER
  24. Microphone C
  25. SPEAKER
  26. Cllr Tony Cooper
  27. Cllr Gary Fuller
  28. SPEAKER
  29. Cllr Tony Cooper
  30. Microphone D
  31. SPEAKER
  32. Microphone D
  33. SPEAKER
  34. Microphone B
  35. SPEAKER
  36. Microphone B
  37. Cllr Tony Cooper
  38. Cllr Tony Cooper
  39. Cllr Tony Cooper
  40. Microphone B
  41. Cllr Tony Cooper
  42. Microphone C
  43. Cllr Tony Cooper
  44. Microphone B
  45. Cllr Tony Cooper
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Tony Cooper
  2. Cllr Tony Cooper
  3. Cllr Gary Fuller
  4. Cllr Tony Cooper
  5. Webcast Finished

Microphone A - 0:00:02
Good afternoon, we will move to the first item which is the election of chair. Do I
have any nominations please?
Nominate Councillor Cooper.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:00:09
I second.
Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 0:00:11
Thank you Councillor Cooper you've been elected chair.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:00:15
Microphone A - 0:00:16
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:00:18
Good afternoon and welcome to the meeting of the election to act sublimacy. This meeting
will be broadcast live to the internet for those who do not wish to be recorded or filmed
you will need to leave the chamber.
For members, officers and others speaking at the meeting,
it is important that the microphones are used

1 Election of Chair

so viewers on the webcast and others in the room may hear you.
Would anyone with a mobile phone please switch into silent mode,
I say it can be distracting.
I would also like to remind members
that although we have strong opinions on matters under consideration,
it is important to treat members, officers and public speakers with respect.
Thank you.

2 Apologies for absence

Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:00:57
We move on to item 2. Is there any declarations, any apologies for options?
No.
Thank you. And item 3, any declarations of interest?

3 Declarations of interest

No.

4 Declarations of lobbying

5 An application for a Review of a Premises Licence in respect of: Littlestone Store

Thank you. Declarations of lobbying, any lobbying conducted? Thank you. So we move to item 5,
which is the application for review of premises licence and respective looks to the store.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:01:24
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:01:24
So this is an application for review of a premises licence in respect of this stone
store.
To consider an application for review of a premises licence under part 3 section 51 of
the Licencing Act 2003 made by PC Alistair Pringle on behalf of Kent Police. In respect
of Little Stone Store, 41 Little Stone Road, Little Stone. The licencing subcommittee must
determine the outcome for the application. Reasons for determinations. The committee
is asked to consider the review application for the premises licence. When considering
the application, the committee must ensure that they fully promote the licencing objectives.
The committee is obliged to have
regards to the revised national
section 182 guidance and the
council's own licencing policy.
The licencing subcommittee is asked
to note the contents of this report
number DC 2522.
And determine the application.
The options for determining the
application are set out in section 5.
The Licencing Act 2003 provides
that the sale or supply of alcohol on and off the premises
and other licenceable activities must be authorised by a premises licence.
A premises licence holder must comply with the four licencing objectives.
The prevention of crime and disorder, public safety,
the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm.
Little Stone Store was first issued a premises licence on 30 August 2016
and since 2023 various responsible authorities,
including licencing,
police and trading standards,
have carried out periodic joint visits
that have raised concerns during this
period during a visit in December 2023.
It was noted that the premises licence
and DPS was not on the not in the
current holders name.
This was raised with the current
licence holder and an application
to vary the licence was received
in February 2024.
The current premises licence can be seen at Appendix 1.
Kent Police have submitted the request to review the premises licence,
which can be seen at Appendix 2.
The review request is in respect of the licencing objectives,
the prevention of crime and disorder,
public safety and the protection of children from harm.
The licencing authority must review the premises licence
where it is alleged in an application
for review by a responsible authority
or an interested party that any of the
licencing objectives are being undermined.
Relevant representations are those
which are relevant to one or more
of the licencing objectives.
Are made by responsible authority or an
interested party within the prescribed
periods are made by the holder of the
premises licence in response to an
application for review of to the said
premises have not been withdrawn and if made by an interested party that they are not in
the opinion of the relevant licencing authority frivolous or vexatious.
It is recommended that the licencing committee determine the application for review and decide
what, if any, actions are appropriate for the promotion of the licencing objectives
in relation to Litterstone stores.
The licencing committee in considering an application for review must have
regard to the adopted statement of licencing policy section 182 guidance
issued by the Secretary of State and any relevant representations made by those
directly affected and any other information presented at the hearing.
This hearing has been required by the Licencing Act 2003 because the review
application was made by a responsible authority and representations have been
from interested parties and these
can also be seen at Appendix 3.
Options the licencing subcommittee
has the following options.
Take no action against the premises licence.
Issue an informal warning letter.
Add conditions to the licence.
Exclude a licenseable activity.
Remove the DPS.
Suspend the licence for a period of
up to three months or revoke the licence.
The committee is asked to note that it may not add conditions or revoke the licence
merely because it considers it desirable to do so.
The committee must only consider evidence that relates to their full licencing objectives.
Any conditions added must promote the licencing objectives.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any comments in the committee?
Stared?
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:06:24
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:06:33
Microphone B - 0:06:44
Sorry, can I just ask, I've got a, obviously my speech to do, would you prefer me to do
my speech in relation to this matter now or would you prefer to see the CCTV first?
or should be going to private committees to see the CCTB because it's going to identify
individuals, isn't it?
And then shall I do my speech after that?
If you would, please.
Thank you.
So can I recommend or move that we go into private committee?
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:07:09
I'll second that.
Thank you.
All right, I see the public in the place.
Thank you.

5 An application for a Review of a Premises Licence in respect of: Littlestone Store

Microphone B - 0:07:22
Kent Police have submitted this application to review the premises licence at the Little
Stone store because we have serious concerns about this business and the way it's been
operating recently.
Today we will be discussing the following points.
Those points being proven underage sales of alcohol, a complete failure to carry out age
cheques in respect of challenge 25, breaches of licence conditions including no staff training
or documentation in respect of responsible sales of alcohol and no staff training in
relation to how to operate CCTV system.
We will be talking about criminal activity, not only selling of alcohol to minors, but
also the employment of somebody who does not have the legal right to work in the UK.
But above all, this case will be about the harm caused to children.
On the 31st of May this year, two 15 year old girls walked into Little Stone stores
and were sold not one but two bottles of vodka.
No ID was asked for, no questions were raised, one of those girls ended up in hospital.
Her mother told us that her daughter had urinated herself, had vomited and was foaming at the mouth.
She was terrified. Both mothers were left shaken, angry and scared, not just for their own children but for others who might be put at similar risk.
This wasn't just a breach of licencing conditions, it was a moment of real danger for two vulnerable
children.
I appreciate the, I intended the footage to be showed after, so bear with me in terms
of my speech.
I do apologise for that.
Today you'll see CCTV footage that shows this incident and others.
You will see multiple examples of age restricted products being sold with no effort taken to
cheque the customer's age.
Staff bypassed till prompts on the cash register.
Challenge 25 was ignored.
The refusal log was not being used properly.
Information suggests the store is known locally
amongst young people as the place to go for alcohol and vapes.
This reputation didn't happen by accident.
It likely came from repeated illegal sales and a lack of control.
We don't suggest any significant weight be attributed to information over the factual
report but bear in mind how many under 18s would report the ability to purchase age restricted
products to any authority.
Would they likely tell their parents?
Would they tell a teacher or someone they trust?
Even the ones that found themselves in a vulnerable position or found themselves overly drunk
example, you would imagine to someone it would be a well guarded, to some it would be a well guarded secret.
A resident suffering antisocial behaviour from youths suspected of purchasing alcohol and vapes
brought the attention of Little Stone stores to the authorities.
Officers from Kent Police, Frokes and Hyatt Council and Trading Standards
attended and found a number of breaches, not just the conditions attached to the licence but also
conditions which raises concerns.
The mandatory conditions are conditions
that apply to all premises licence
that are authorised that authorise
the sale of alcohol.
They cannot be removed or altered.
These conditions are automatically
applied and relate to various
aspects of alcohol sales.
Some licences have those
conditions printed on them.
Many do not,
regardless of being on the
licence or not, they still apply.
One of the mandatory conditions
which applies in this particular case is as follows.
The Licencing Act 2003 mandates the premises licence holder
must ensure that age verification policy is adopted
in respect to the premises in relation to the sale
or supply of alcohol.
As such, Little Stone store has breached
this mandatory condition by failing to ensure
that it was adhered to.
It's not as if a well -trained member of staff
has made a one off error of judgement.
It's a staff member that likely wasn't trained.
Maybe he didn't want the hassle
of refusing those sales.
The premises licence at the Little
Stone store includes several key conditions,
including.
An age verification policy
challenge 25 in place or staff to be
trained in responsible alcohol sales.
A training log and record will be kept
and made available to the authorities on request.
An adequate CCTV system will be installed and will be maintained and kept in good working
order at all times.
CCTV will provide coverage of all sails and till areas as well as the entrance door.
CCTV images and recordings will be kept for a minimum of 28 days and will be made available
to the police and licencing authority on request.
All staff to be trained in relation to how to operate the CCTV CCTV system.
Perhaps through lack of training the staff member failed to follow the Challenge 25 condition
on the premises licence on two separate days that weaken evidence.
Simply displaying a Challenge 25 poster is insufficient.
A trained and competent member of staff would have known to ask on every sale every time.
No training logs were present to show that staff were trained in responsible sales of
alcohol.
Perhaps such training would have alerted the staff member to the risks around alcohol and
children.
Kent Police first requested CCTV from Little Stone Store on the 6th June asking for it
provided by the 13th of June.
Due to the licence holder DPS being overseas,
it was suggested that it could be
supplied by the 18th of June.
However, due to sickness it wasn't.
Whilst there were some difficulties
which are technical difficulties,
it was.
It wasn't provided until around the 9th of July,
over a month after it was first requested.
The CCTV condition stipulating
it would be provided on request
shouldn't mean a month later.
A competent competent member of staff
should have been trained in the
operation of the CCTV,
not just by calling a friend for
access for the access code,
but by assisting authorities in locating
and viewing specific footage that was
required instead officers were left
to work it out themselves.
A member of staff present at the shop
should be able to easily satisfy the
police request for footage with no
than a day or two perhaps.
Each condition needs to be fully met to ensure each sale of alcohol is legally
authorised by the premises, by the permissions granted by the licencing authority.
There are failings beyond the sale of alcohol to children.
Evidence shows a total disregard to the good working practises we would expect to see,
Designed not only to protect the licence holder or member of staff, but also anyone exposed to the harm alcohol can have, especially in regards to children.
There was a responsibility, this was the responsibility of the licence holder and DPS, no one else, not the friend looking after the shop, not an untrained, illegally employed member of staff,
Certainly not the two 15 year olds by virtue of their ages
were vulnerable and unlikely to have opted
for the situation they found themselves in later.
Had there been good practises in place, then it's this.
Then it's likely a child's life would not have been put at risk.
To say that the Little Stone stores have failed
to promote the licencing objectives is an understatement.
The breaches and concerns are so significant
directed them to cease any licence
for activity until such time as
they could operate legally,
which is not a direction taken lightly.
The Kent police application for the
review was served on the licence holder
DPS so they were well aware of the
concerns around age verifications.
Selling the selling of alcohol to
children and breaches breaches of
conditions and the concerns around
employing somebody who did not have
legal right to work in the UK.
Officers from Kent Police, Folkestone and District Council and Trading Standards completed
a follow -up visit to the shop on the 15th of July to ensure that there were no ongoing
infractions and surprisingly found the same member of staff working behind the counter
who was not supervised.
This is the same member of staff that sold the vodka to the 15 year olds, the same member
staff who failed to adhere to the challenge 25.
The same member of staff who was not entitled to work in the UK whilst here on a visit visa.
So despite seeing a further alleged illegal sale of alcohol correctly refused, the premises
were still employing someone who was not entitled to work due to their immigration status.
Licence premises have a legal duty both under the licencing and immigration law to ensure
that all staff have the right to work in the UK.
It's not a mere formality.
It's about safeguarding individuals,
protecting the public, and upholding the law.
Failure to conduct proper cheques can
lead to serious consequences.
Legal breaches and potential criminal offences,
exploitation of vulnerable individuals,
often left without training, support,
or awareness of their rights, operational risks,
including untrained staff,
unable to manage essential systems like CCTV.
This reflects the failure not in not just in procedure,
but in basic human responsibility.
The worker too was placed in a vulnerable position.
Managing a licence premises without the necessary tools,
knowledge or legal protection.
When issues arose, he was left exposed and unsupported.
and on the evening of the confirmed
underage alcohol sale he was subjected
to an assault which went unreported
by the premises and only later found.
On CCTV by police.
Employing somebody without the
legal right to work is a criminal
offence under immigration law.
Within licence premises,
such offences are treated with
the utmost seriousness.
Under Section 36 and Schedule 4
of the Immigration Act 2016,
which amended Licencing Act 2003,
immigration offences,
including the employment of illegal
workers are classified as relevant offences.
This means that they are directly
linked to the prevention of crime
disorder licencing objective.
The Home Office guidance is clear and it says.
Where there is evidence of illegal
working as the licence premises
revocation of that licence,
even on first occurrence,
should be seriously considered.
This is because illegal working undermines the rule of law and the integrity of the licencing
system, supports criminal networks that exploit vulnerable individuals, creates unfair competition
for law -abiding businesses and puts the worker themselves at risk, often without training,
protection or legal recourse.
In this case, the individual found working at the Little Stone store was untrained, unsupported
and did not have the legal right to work.
He was placed in a vulnerable position
by those responsible for the premises.
That failure lies squarely with the management.
What happened to those children again
lies squarely with the management licence holder and DPS.
Kent Police state that the evidence clearly shows
the Little Stone stores seriously undermining
the licencing objectives of preventing crime disorder,
and protecting children from harm.
Any claim that the licence holder or
DPS were let down by a friend managing
the shop in their absence is unconvincing.
And in fact,
highlights their greater culpability.
No safeguarding measures were in place
or followed or likely well before
their departure abroad.
Their inaction,
procedural failings and the employment
of a legal worker constitutes serious breaches.
In accordance with national guidance,
Kent Police believe that revocation of the premises licence
is not only proportionate,
but necessary to uphold the law and protect the public.
Thank you for listening.
Thank you for your support, Mr. Pingle.
I see we've got Mr. Jewell there.
Would you like to make any comment to Mr. Jewell, please?
You invite some questions of PC Pingle at the moment,
or would you like my comments?
Unless there's any comments, please, you can go.
If that's fine, Mr Jewell, thank you.
I can just ask one before I subomptiate.
Just the dates from the CCTV that we saw,
when I wrote it in there,
were all between the 23rd of May and the 31st of May.
Is that...
Yeah, is that the half -term period?
I'm not 100 % sure when that half -term period would have been.
I think it was.
Microphone D - 0:21:24
I mean, my question was, I mean...
As training standards we receive the complaints sometimes a bit more after the event, but do you in your role
see an increase in concern about young people trying to buy alcohol in the half term? Yeah, absolutely it goes beyond just
those individuals attending a shop to attempt to buy alcohol, but
we also see a rise in anti -social behaviour in local
say recreational grounds or community areas where people have perhaps obtained alcohol
through whichever measure they attempted or been successful in obtaining it and then involve
themselves in antisocial behaviour which has a disproportionate impact on the communities
where it takes place.
Yes, I mean for me it's more an observation if I launch into my bit.
So, being the half term, I would say it's a period
of absolute high alert.
So, I mean, some of the people we saw in the video,
we obviously, some of them are on confirmed ages,
but looking at some of them, I absolutely agree
with the ages suggested, but whether they're 17, 18,
or other, as a period of high alert,
I think that the business should be doing a lot more,
regardless of whether it's a friend helping out,
you know, as the ownership should be,
so doing something, but.
I'll move on to my representations now, if I can.
So, the Trading and Science Department,
Council as responsible authority under licencing act to make representation on the grounds
of protection of children from harm, crime disorder and prevention of public nuisance
objectives in connexion with the review application that has been bought today by Kent Police
for the premises known as Little Stone Store in New Romley.
The contents of the review application and what we have heard from PC Pringle has been
noted by our department and circumstances surrounding it, especially having reviewed
lead this authority to share the young age concerns in respect to the suitability, the
ongoing licence of the premises.
This service concerns predominantly related to the ability of the premises licence holder
and his staff to fulfil the objective to protect children from harm and prevention
of public nuisance.
And I do just want to touch quickly on, because some of the comments we've heard and the death
errors that come up, we've looked at some of the young people buying vaping products,
which obviously sits outside of the confines of the Licencing Act,
but as an age -restricted product, it carries the same age restriction of 18,
and that age restriction is in place, first and foremost,
for protecting young people from harm.
The actions of the licence holder and his staff
in relation to any of the vaping sales
is absolutely relevant to what we're here to discuss today.
From a trader standards point of view,
We've looked back at the premises history that we've held with our records going back to October 2022.
So just provide us a brief summary of what we have.
So in October 2022, a complaint that was received from a parent
saying her son and his friends had purchased vapes from the Nifflstone store.
The complainant's son also stated that his school friends can get served while wearing their school uniform.
In the same month, a complaint was received from another parent
saying their 15 year old child had purchased a vape from the Nifflstone store.
and the complainant said they also had spoken with other parents
and said that their 16 -year -old child had been able to purchase alcohol from the same shop.
In March 2023, a parent complained to the service
that the Stone store was selling vapes to schoolchildren
aged 12 and 13 years old in school uniform.
So in March 2023, a trading standards officer attended the store
due to the complaints received.
At the time, the officer noted that there were no Challenge 25 posters displayed
and there was no refusal book present,
as matters have been discussed as conditions of premises licence.
When the officer asked the member staff,
the member staff said that the fusible recorded through the TIL system,
but he didn't know how to access that information.
A member of staff was asked about the CCTV in the store
and he also didn't know how to operate the CCTV.
In June 2023, a Challenge 25 test purchase was carried out
using a volunteer aged 19 years old.
This is a process that we do, reduces the burden on business,
but we can conduct a test purchase using
somebody above the legal age limit.
So it doesn't kick in the defences,
but allows us a means to assess whether
the store is abiding by the advice we've given.
At that time, the test purchase
attempted to purchase a vape,
and when asked for ID,
the members star,
also the volunteers said they didn't
have any and the sale was refused.
In July 2024,
complaint was received from a parent
saying that their child aged 12 years
was able to purchase a vape and an energy drink from Little Stone's store.
And in the same month,
Kent Redding standards carried out an underage test purchase,
this time using a 13 year old female volunteer attempting to purchase a vape,
when again she was asked for ID and a test put,
and having said that she had none, the sale was refused.
In June 2025, a complaint was received from the parents
stating their 15 year old daughter and her friend had been allowed to purchase alcohol,
mainly vodka from the store on the 31st May 2025
and her daughter being taken to hospital.
Now the test purchases are referred to care
in June 2023 and July 2024 by the service,
which were refused and we acknowledge that,
but they are a mere snapshot of the activity
and we've seen other snapshots on just a couple of,
covering on CCTV covering a couple of days,
which paints a very different picture.
First as a service, we find it's not uncommon
for anybody who wishes to avoid detection
from our test purchase exercises to actually a degree of caution only selling to customers
that they already know and then pulling other safeguards to make sure they don't get caught out.
Again having viewed the CCTV that we've been shown today I'd say that the volunteers that we used,
I remember both from both occasions and they would have appeared no older or younger than
the people we saw on screen.
So from our perspective, as you say,
there's possibly something more to be told,
and our test purchases don't paint the whole picture.
But the number of complaints that trading standards
have received, which all appear unique to us,
represents a significant number of complaints for one premises.
The number of complaints we receive
all involving young people of similar ages.
So the new focus of young people around the ages
which is 12 and 13, identifies the inability
of the premises to uphold the licencing objective
to protect children from harm.
Now as I mentioned,
Bapes are also an age restricted product,
falling under the same change 25 policy cheques
that staff should be making
for alcohols to part their licence.
And it'd be something that we regularly advise on
and in a minute my colleague, Andy Blair,
he'll talk about some of the visits
that he's been doing to the store.
I did mention of energy drinks, they're not an age -restricted product but obviously it's
also common best practise not to sell these to under 18s due to the well -documented risks
to help excessive consumption.
So the CCTV footage of the incident provided by Kent Police and the impact statements which
I believe have been provided from the parents of the most recent incident clearly identifies
the failures to protect children from harm.
The conditions that already have been applied to the licence include staff training, diffusals
registers, staff to be trained in CTTV and the Challenge 25 policy to be applied by all
staff.
As mentioned, Challenge 25 is the policy adopted by retailers to prevent the sale of age restricted
products, particularly alcohol, to minors and encourages staff to ask for identification
from anyone who looks under the age of 25 when purchasing such items.
This policy is a proactive measure to ensure that retailers comply with the law which prohibits
sale of alcohol to those under 18 and in essence I'm sure everyone's aware you know it is that
buffer zone so you're not making the accidental sale to somebody who one person may think one age
and one person may think another. In our opinion the conditions have clearly not been applied as
the children were not asked for identification at the time of sale. The failure to follow the
licenced conditions had resulted in the child being hospitalised and as as such Kent trading
standards support the Kent police position to call for the revocation of the licence.
I'll now pass over to my colleague Andy Blair, who will give an account of the visits over the last 18 months,
including the evidence gained from the conversation we had with the mother of the child that was admitted to hospital
whilst consuming the alcohol purchase from the disaster store.
I think the ability to be a question would be comfortable for you.
Just a couple of, well, a question probably is fine.
My question, mentioned somewhere in your submission
that you had given the store prior warning about carrying out a cheque, as it were.
Was that the case for both of the attempts to purchase?
So routinely when we are carrying out our advisory visits,
normally they're in relation to a complaint that we've received.
Sometimes there will be, there'll be just a regular visit in the area.
But if it's in relation to a complaint, then we'd routinely be advising that yes,
we do carry out the cheques so they'd be aware that something was coming up.
In respect, was your question about the actual test purchases?
Did we warn them?
Well, would they have been aware in both cases
that test purchases were potentially coming up?
Is basically why I'm saying.
Yes, so as part of the advice work, we were teeming.
I mean, it's not within a set period, so we wouldn't say within the next week.
but they would be aware that we carry out test purchase operations.
Obviously, again, part of the advisory work.
We do strongly recommend that licence holders,
they're talking to their staff, and as I alluded to earlier,
when there's a particular period of when there should be a higher alert,
it is those reminders that should be going out to staff,
individual staff members.
That reminds me, actually, I can confirm it was half so much.
And just on the energy drinks, so it's completely non -age restricted.
I was always under the impression that under 16s, for example, weren't allowed to...
That's right, there is currently no age restriction.
Obviously, when you go into supermarkets, if you go and buy a can of Red Bull,
it will flag up in all supermarkets, they will flag it up for an age cheque.
and that is their policy because they're trying to do the right thing.
I think moves are a foot as part of government proposals
to bring any restrictions on those in the coming years.
Any further questions there?
Thank you, Mr Jewell.
Good afternoon, Chair.
Microphone C - 0:32:09
As my colleague Oliver said, my name's Andy Blair.
I am Trading Standards Youth Home Reduction Officer.
My role has got two main parts.
First part being proactive which includes education of young people, schools, parents,
attending engagement days, working with multi agencies.
I visit retailers both large and small.
That includes main retailers, Tesco, Sainsbury's, to name a couple.
to support them where needed and to ensure that the underage policies are actually being implemented.
The other side of my role is being reactive. This includes dealing with complaints that come to our attention.
These complaints arrive from various sources, Citizens' Affairs, Kem police, schools, parents or even just general public.
When a complaint arrives I will, depending on the severity of the complaint, arrange
a visit to the premises.
Normally with Kem police licencing the local authority are licencing.
Most retailers have a refusal book.
This is a document to record refusals made of age restricted products, training records
and supportive information in store to support the licencing conditions
protecting children from harm. During a visit these documents and records will
be inspected and this provides an insight into the level of competency
within the store. If we are given the time and date of the incident we then
cheque the refusal register as if there's any evidence of a refusal.
We can cross reference the refusal against CCTV footage on the premises.
This can either prove the sale was refused or the sale was made and no identification
cheques were made.
A copy of the premises licence will be present at the time of the inspection.
and myself and any licencing officers can cheque the conditions on the licence and see
if these are being implemented as well.
My first visit to the Little Sun store was in December 2023.
The owner, Mr. Keir Eberkaren was present and I explained to the owner that the trading
standards that receive a number of complaints of underage sales coming from his store and
I'll be carrying out a visit to cheque the procedures for the underage sales.
I know that they would challenge 25 posters displayed in store and that the till prompts
on the till system to remind the operator to do ID cheques present.
I asked to see the refusal register, this was up to date and I ordered it by way of
signing it on that particular day.
I asked the owner to show me two random refusals from the register, so I just picked out two
and said can you show me those on the CCTV, which he did and they matched up with the
refusal register.
There were no staff training records to show that any members of staff have been trained
on the CCTV.
I advise the owner that Challenge 25 test purchases will be carried out in the near
future.
This is normal as a standard, I do a follow up email after a visit, any visit to any shop
and as part of the format of that email it will actually state that we do carry out Challenge
25s just to give them just a little bit of insight into we will do this but we don't
give any timeline on it it is just as and when.
On the 13th February 2024 a joint visit was made to the same store attending visit was
PC Alistair Pringle, Kent Police Licencing and John Bickle from Foulson District Hive
folks in the High District Council licencing and myself.
On arrival we were met by a member of staff, Mr Member of Staff A, no reason to name him.
The owner wasn't present.
Once again we checked the refusal book against CCTV which was accurate.
It was noted that there was an issue with the premises licence and that's when it was
that the premises licence was in the licence holder of Blackpool Road. Mr Bickle investigated
this. My next visit was on the 20th of December. I received information of a complaint from
Kent Police concerning the underage sales of a vape. On the 1st of December I was due
to visit a little store with Alistair Pringle but unfortunately he was called away on operational
duties. When I arrived in store was met by a member of staff A and the owner wasn't present
again. I asked to see the refusal book I know that there was no entries at all for July
or November in 2024. I signed the refusal book to say that I had visited. There were
I was playing an underage sales pack, these packs if a premises has no refusal book or
no staff training records this is a pack with a lot of information in it including two examples
a refusal register and all the information they would need for underage sales of not
only alcohol but vapes and cigarettes and lottery.
No staff training record.
I was playing under a sales pack at the time of my visit.
I asked a member of staff to show me footage from the 1st of December between 3 and 4.
Staff member A knew how to operate the CCTV and at 15 .26 the footage showed two young
females entering the shop.
One of them approached the counter and purchased two vapes and paid for by card.
Both females looked at the age of 18 and no ID cheques were made.
When I asked staff member A about this incident he said that he had previously checked the
ID of the female making the purchase and he had said that he remembered the sale.
Even though it was quite a long time between the sale and me asking the question.
And he remembered that her birthday was in September.
I found this a bit strange when he remembered the sale and her birthday.
I took photos of the two females and I passed over two hours today for him to make some
notes on.
On the 30th of May I received an email from PC Pringle with regards to report made to
Kent police on the 23rd of the 5th 2025.
This was from a local resident saying that youths were causing damage to their property
while drinking, vaping and smoking.
I was also stated that the news purchased aid restricted products from Little Stone store
PC Pringle suggested that we make another visit to the store to see if we could capture any of the sales on CCTV
and do a licencing visit while we were there
we arranged this for the 5th of June at 1 o 'clock
On the 4th of June I received an email from our Intelligence Department
that they had received a complaint of underage sales of vodka to two 15 year old females.
I read the complaint which had the contact details of the complainant.
I phoned the complainant but there was no answer but soon after the complainant returned my call.
This was the parent of one of the 15 year old girls that purchased the vodka.
I will refer to the parent as parent one and the child as child one.
Parent one told me that she had received a call from her daughter's friend's mother,
where child one was staying for the night, to say that child one had become very unwell
and sick.
Parent one drove to the house of parent two to find her daughter unconscious, unresponsive
and was foaming from the mouth.
An ambulance was called, parent one and child one were taken to hospital where child one
was put on an intravenous drip and an ECG heart monitor.
Parent one told me that she was terrified seeing her daughter in that condition.
They arrived at the hospital at approximately 2100 hours and left at 0330.
The next day, parent one told me that she had asked her daughter
where she had purchased the alcohol from.
Child one said the Little Stone store,
as it was common knowledge that you can get served there and they don't ask for ID.
After the call I phoned PC Pringle to update him on a new complaint and the severity of
it.
We agreed to continue with the planned visit but to also invite John Bickle from Folsom
and Hyde District Council Licencing to join us.
On the 5th of June 2025 PC Pringle, John Bickle and myself arrived at the Lipsdale store for
an inspection.
We were met by a member of staff, member of staff B. We asked to view the CCTV.
The member of staff did not know how to use the CCTV system.
PC Bringle asked the member of staff to call the owner to get the password of the system.
Member of staff B called the person who was in charge as the owner was out of the country.
Member of staff B entered the code to access the CCTV and I operated the CCTV.
PC Brinkle and John Bickle and I viewed the CCTV for the incident reported on the 23rd
that was the one of anti -social behaviour.
we found four instances of age restricted products for the given date and
approximate time none of the sales were checked for ID or challenged in any way.
The appearance of the purchases on CCTV should have triggered request for ID as a
minimum using a challenge 25.
We all then viewed the footage for the 31st.
We quickly found the footage of the two young females entering the store, one of them selecting
a bottle of what looks to be orange and then both approaching the counter.
Child one asks for a bottle of vodka.
the staff member selects the 350ml bottle of Smyrna Frogger which has an AVB of 37 .5 %
and scan the item through the till system, he then exits out of the till prompt, this
is the part of the till system that reminds the operator to cheque ID of the purchaser.
Child 1 then asks for another bottle of the same product.
The purchase is completed by Child 1 paying for all three items with cash.
Child 2 then collects the alcohol and the orange which has been placed into a black bag by the member of staff.
And the two young females leave the store.
At no point during the sale was there any attempt to verify the age of the two young females.
We continued to view the footage to the point where parent two enters the store to confront the member of staff.
This was at the same time that parent one and child one were being transported to hospital on blue lights.
that it was actually on blue lights.
The footage was recorded on PC Pringle's mobile device of all the incidents.
On the 15th of July 2025, a joint visit was conducted by PC Pringle and John Bichel and
myself.
This visit was due to another complaint of ASB received by Kent Police.
On our arrival we were met by the same member of staff on previous visit, which is member
of staff B. PC Pringle asked to see the refusal register, John Bickle checked the premises
licence.
We then asked staff member B to operate the CCTV, this he did.
PC Pringle and John Bickle viewed the CCTV for the date given to him concerning the ASB
issue or sorry incident.
I spoke to member of staff B obtaining details of his home address.
Staff member B told me that he lives above a shop in Folkestone which is owned by his
boss's friend.
I asked how staff member B travelled between Littlestone and the address where he lives,
which is in Folkestone.
Staff member B told me that the owner of the Cornish shop in Folkestone drives him to Littlestone
for opening at 0700 hours and collects him at approximately 2100 hours, between 2100
and 2200 hours.
this is seven days a week.
Given that three of the conditions that have been applied to the premises have not been
adhered to, these being Challenge 25, all staff to be trained in the operation of CCTV
and all staff members to be trained and training records to be kept on the premises for inspection
and given the severity of the incident on the 31st of May involving the sale of 700
millilitres of Smirnoff vodka at 37 .5 % ABV to two 15 year old females.
With one child being taken to hospital to receive treatment, coupled with the sale of
alcohol to suspected underage customers that have caused antisocial behaviour indicates
a total disregard for the licencing objectives to prevent children from harm.
Therefore Kent Trading Standards completely supports and completes its call for the alcohol
licence of Lillipso's store to be revoked.
Thank you.
Thank you Mr Blythe.
Any questions of members here?
Yeah I've got a couple.
So I just want to make sure that I'm very clear in my head.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:48:18
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:48:18
So staff member B is the same individual we saw on the video, yes?
That's correct, yes.
OK, we've established that staff member B is working seven days a week.
Presumably, I don't know if we're still covered by the Working Times Directive,
but that sounds a bit dodgy.
We've established that they are living at property in Fokston
even though they don't have the right to work.
And does that live in the UK as well?
or are they here on a business reason?
Do you understand that correctly?
I believe they haven't got the right to work in the country,
but I believe they have the right to be in the country.
It's a visit visa.
It's a visit visa.
How long does a visit visa last? Is it indefinite?
I'm not sure.
No, that's fine. That's okay.
So, staff member A, however,
do we know if they have the right to work in the UK?
Is that being a statistic?
That was not established.
I only met that member of staff once, possibly twice, I believe.
But he's not working there any further.
And we believe that individuals, as far as we could tell,
there was no evidence that they went by by -end, or that none was found.
No, there was no evidence of that.
Well, that's quite the point.
Did you come to see him?
Sorry, I just had one more.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:49:43
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:49:43
Because the individual staff member B had been working, we've had previous committee
meetings where immigration enforcement had been present.
Are they not present effectively because Kent police would be dealing with that now or is
that just that it felt sufficient that you guys were here?
So that they were as a responsible authority given
Microphone B - 0:50:07
the copy of the review application.
My contact with them, they explained that they were
intending on submitting reps in support.
However, they missed the cutoff point.
They missed the cutoff period.
So therefore, they were informed that yes, they could attend.
And should the committee have any questions,
they could be asked.
but they can't provide anything outside of that conversation period.
I'll take that.
Have you got any questions? Help yourself.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:50:42
No, it's here. Thank you.
What would you like to say?
SPEAKER - 0:50:50
Thank you, sir.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 0:50:55
We would like to start in saying, Councillors,
SPEAKER - 0:51:00
these are serious mistakes.
We are not against what the authority says,
what happened in June and that period.
It's very serious, there are failings.
My client deeply regrets what happened
and our intention today, Chair,
it's not to give you an excuse for these mistakes,
just to explain the circumstances around the situation,
just the mitigating circumstances around the situation.
That's what we are here today.
These are serious mistakes, without a doubt.
Chad, my client is very strict in age restricted sales.
I know there are a number of complaints in the past.
I was talking about him.
The complaints made for several reasons.
When he refused the sale to somebody, they just even tell them that we're going to make
a complaint.
So, you can see from the statement provided by the trading standard officers, my client
never failed on a test purchase before.
He had a refusal record.
It was almost every year signed off by the trading standard.
He installed a till prompt as an additional measure to instruct the staff member to cheque
before the sale took place, clearly he breached that
in this case.
And there are signed, challenge -genified signs
to warn the customers.
The one other thing I just wanted to stress that here
is I'm involved in this matter from last Friday.
He contacted me on Thursday night.
I know it's nothing to do with the committee
or the responsible authorities.
I visited the premises, went through the matters and I sent my report and some additional documents
over the weekend.
It's a very, very short notice.
I understand the police officer was off till this morning.
I got an email from him.
I include a number of things in the email.
I have the originals and the copies on the emails but I'm not expecting the officers
to be seen or prepared for that.
It's again, it's our fourth, it's the last minute information.
I have included in my email over the weekend,
the first one is just a copies of the refusal record
and selected pages, we've got the full refusal record here,
we can provide that selected pages on annually
signed off by the Trading Standard Officers
and Officer already mentioned that in the statement,
it's same as what he said.
And also, as I mentioned, we have still prompt
and science on the premises.
On the 19th of May, 2025, my client had to travel
to Sri Lanka for emergency, family emergency reasons.
His parents are in Sri Lanka, his only child,
his parents are alone in Sri Lanka,
his dad is a dementia patient,
and there was immediate medical attention,
if something's not as expected,
all of a sudden, so he had to travel.
Again, in my email over the weekend,
and I send the pages of the passport showing the date stamps
of UK immigration and the Sri Lankan immigration
showing the travel dates.
So everything happened when he wasn't in the country.
So before he leave,
there was a last minute urgent temporary arrangement.
With his help of his friend,
he employed someone to cover his position.
That is the staff member you saw on the CCTV footages.
Unfortunately, he didn't assess the staff member,
he didn't train the staff member,
there's no excuse for that, he's the responsible person,
he made the mistake, but he did the mistake
under the circumstances.
I have also in the email provided the pages
of the passport showing that.
These mistakes occurred while my client
is away from the country.
This temporary staff member failed to follow
the age restriction policy.
These two children were children,
this is another thing he mentioned to me,
that these two children, two girls on the CCT were coding,
they were refused alcohol by my client previously.
He thinks, I mean, it's not an excuse on our side,
but he thinks because that's the different person
behind the counter, they tried it and they succeeded.
it's not the child's fault, it is my client's fault
and the staff member behind the counter.
We are not trying to shift the blame, it is our fault.
He confronted the staff member on his return
and even when he was there in Sri Lanka,
the reason he was given by the member that on that day,
I think he already mentioned that in the email
to the police officer, that his wife had a miscarriage,
he was on the phone most of the day,
he didn't pay attention to what he was doing.
That is the reason he was given by the staff member.
Jia, we would like to confirm that that person
is no longer working in his premises.
He has a new employee and he's looking for another one.
So he's no longer working on the premises.
And also, he has taken number of measures.
All the staff members in the premises
are fully trained at the moment.
all the trainings are documented, all signed off.
When I was on the premises last Friday,
I spent almost all day in the premises,
training all the staff, updating all the signs,
the code books, everything.
In my email over the weekend, I have included
the example of one of the staff training,
I have the training record here,
showing almost more than 30 aspects of
under the Licencing Act we have discussed
and it's the face -to -face training,
recorded, signed off by all parties.
The staff recording the record books is on the premises
available for inspection at any time.
And also we have put up signs, warning signs,
not just Challenge 25, there are a number
of different signages.
I have included some of the signs on the email
to the offices, but if I briefly mention the signs,
that include warning people about buying alcohol
on behalf of a minor, i .e. proxy sales,
signage to ask people to leave quietly,
and ask people to clear the area and don't cause any nuisance
and using a fake ID, 725 smoking signs
and any sort of rungs, we will refuse the alcohol,
as well as the reminder signs for the staff members
about the objectives and to cheque the IDs.
So all these signs are put up on the premises at the moment.
It's well beyond the current licence requirements,
licence conditions, yeah.
And also, I made sure the premises is fully complied
with the current licence conditions.
That is the current state of this premises, Councillor.
And also, from the supplementary evidence provided
by the Officer Mr Pringle, I noticed that in July,
after all these happened, they had another complaint
from the local residents and they did carry out an inspection to the premises and they
checked the CCD regarding the allegation and they found that the premises refusing the alcohol,
I guess it's alcohol, they're refusing the alcohol and the staff member
records that refusal on the record book. Officers confirmed that on the statement.
So all I'm trying to say, Councillor,
yes, we have done mistakes, my client,
the mistake is very serious, he realised that,
but it happens under the circumstances.
But the premise is currently it's not undermining
the licencing objectives.
With great respect to the authorities,
I'm not a legal officer here,
I would like to say that the review process
under the Licencing Act cannot be used
as a way to punish the licensee.
If the premises is currently not undermining
the licencing objectives, that's something
we need to consider, again, with regards to authorities
and the time and effort they spend on this case.
In addition to all of the measures
we have now taking place, my clients also
would like to suggest this.
Again, I mentioned that on my email over the weekend.
What we have seen on the recordings are serious.
So, my clients would like to give you an additional assurance
on top of the measures we have taken place.
He's happy to change his premises licence
to a time -limited licence.
So, in that way, the licence will
elapsed after a certain time.
That's something I'll leave the committee
and authorities to decide if that's something
we are considering.
So six months, one year, three years,
whatever the period it is.
After that time, our licence will elapse, it will stop.
We have to make a fresh application for a new licence.
So it's kind of a probation period.
So it's like if we manage to save the licence today,
authorities don't have to put another review,
same thing happens.
So the licence will automatically expire
and we will make a fresh application after that
and we can be judged at that time.
The reason we are saying that, Councillor,
when the premises was managed by him directly
when he was on the premises, he did everything
and he never had any serious issues in the past.
Yes, there are some conditions breached,
we acknowledge that, but nothing that this sort of incidents
he let it happen.
These two incidents, the under a sale happened
while he was away from the country.
So he has the confidence that he is going to run
the premises without any such incidents in the future,
so he's happy to give that assurance
for a time limited licence,
because if we lose this licence today,
Councillor, he will lose the livelihood.
He's a family man, he has children, and his family depends on this business.
So, revoking this licence is going to cause a serious effect
on his family and his business,
and therefore he is sincerely urging you
to consider the current state of his premises.
At the moment, he's fully compliant,
he has taken extra measures to avoid such things repeating,
and is also giving some additional assurance
by going for a time limited licence.
I'm urging on behalf of my client to consider that.
So as we stand currently the premises
is not undermining the licencing objectives
and also by going for a time limited option
even in the future we are giving you
an assurance for compliance.
So, under this situation, we are sincerely urging
to consider these councillors.
Revoking this will completely destroy this livelihood.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
Do you want to switch to the police or KCC?
Yeah, can I just ask,
The person you asked to, when you were out of the country,
the person you asked to actually help with the business
and be put in place as interim manager, if you like,
where do they live?
Are they in Croydon?
Croydon.
So the member of staff that was having,
shall we say, emotionally compromised,
had no support around him locally that he could call on.
He was just left to his own devices.
That's true, Councillor, sorry, officer.
It's under the situation, he just called his friend and...
You want to add something? Sorry, I'll let him answer it, he's so inorganic.
So what happened is, immediately I went to Sri Lanka,
I asked my friend and told her, offer myself, because...
SPEAKER - 1:04:51
During his absence he also has some own business and stuff.
He found some person to employ.
So through his contact from Graydon someone says okay here, one guy is here, he has a
6 -1 visa.
So normally he thinks about, okay that is normally people sign the PSW 6 -1 visa.
Then he asked me to, after 6 months we have to give the work permit, this licence stuff.
I said okay, if he is okay we can provide the work permit for the, after, before the
visa is expired.
Then I left it, even the first email the officer sent me, I haven't got through it fluently.
After 13th of B .C. only, there is a small mail I see, same guy is working.
Then only I realise, okay, he is in a tourist visa.
Next day morning I immediately come to the shop and ask, what visa you are having?
He said, I'm in a tourist visa.
I asked him, in tourist visa how can you change to other stream for the work permit or anything
else.
Even if I want to apply the work permit or something, we need ILTS 645 something, several
recommend.
Then he said, no, I have his band, this is around 18 ,000 phone to get this tourist visa
So their agent says some blah blah storeys and says no no I can't get hold of you.
I immediately send off him.
This was the issue.
Because of my, otherwise I am opening the shop then employee will start around 9 o 'clock,
10 o 'clock when I went to Kashingari.
Like that he never work in the 7 days in the shop.
Because in my friend's absence, he worked six days or something,
my friend covered one day but he never worked in the seventies in the shop.
Because it's all his.
Excellent.
Microphone C - 1:07:07
I asked him where he was staying and when he told me he was staying in Folkestone,
I questioned how was he getting, because he had no car,
was he using public transport to get down there?
and he told me that the owner of that shop, who was apparently a friend of yours,
was taking him down there and bringing him back.
Any other questions?
Any of the committee? Thank you.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:07:35
Right, let's get this clear on my head.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:07:40
First question, how long after your client came back to the country was the staff member
being employed?
Sorry, Councillor, please repeat that.
How long after your client returned from Sri Lanka was staff member being employed?
SPEAKER - 1:08:02
So the member of staff who sold the alcohol to the children?
No, he was employed when he was leaving from the UK.
Yes, but for how long afterwards?
So was he immediately fired upon your client's return or was he...
Oh, he was fired.
Any thoughts on that?
When they all seemed in absence, he was employed as his staff by my friend.
So your friend employed him?
Yes.
So you went to Sri Lanka.
Sorry about your father.
You went to Sri Lanka, your friend employed him, he worked in the store, he's partner -savvy, suffered a miscarriage,
although I should point out that his actions potentially robbed another parent of their child, so that should be born in the morning.
But my question is that, obviously the police were made aware, the trading standards and so on, they visited,
but how long after either you were made aware of the situation
or you returned to the UK was the individual working in the shop
and when were they removed from that?
He was trying to explain that.
I know he didn't say that clearly to the training standard officer.
He said that's exactly what he was saying.
he received an email from the police officer about the failed sale.
And on the same email, I believe the police officer mentioned
about this illegal working on the same email.
But he failed to read that or he didn't understand that part on the last thing.
As soon as he found out that there was alcohol being sold to a miner,
that was stuck in his head and he was dealing with that from outside the country.
He didn't pay attention to the right to work issue.
It only came to his attention, yes he didn't...
The second visit of the...
Yes, when he visited in July, that is right,
when we came to, based on an allegation of under -aged sale,
the police officer came and checked the CCTV,
we found the person refused the sale and recorded it.
At that time, officers, I understand,
they're shocked to find the same person behind the counter.
They raised the same issue.
That's when he realised that he doesn't have the right papers.
On the spot, he's been stopped.
He hasn't worked from there since the last visit made by the officers.
Okay, so to be clear on that,
We were aware the individual was obviously employed by your client's friend.
He didn't have adequate training.
Your client was made aware that he had sold alcohol to underage individuals,
but wasn't aware of the other issues.
The fact that he had sold alcohol to two 15 -year -old girls
wasn't sufficient for his employment to be ended.
His employment was only ended when your client became aware
that the person didn't have the right to work. Is that correct?
It is not entirely correct, Councillor.
It's with great respect.
He trained him soon after what happened.
He explained everything.
He asked him to, because they even had that,
he mentioned to me that there are some paperworks
provided by the trading standards,
they asked him to cheque it.
Because of the training he provided,
he was able to refuse the sale in July.
So, he trained him, but he was in a position
to fire him straight away and make all these changes
because he was dealing with some other issues.
Again, from the human point of view,
He couldn't do certain things, his mind is in the right state at the time.
It's not an excuse, but that's a fact, that's all.
Effectively you're saying that upon his return from Sri Lanka
there were still other things going on
and therefore he still needed a member of staff there
Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:12:20
for the optic to train him rather than just firing on the spot.
OK, I get that.
You mentioned you'd sent an email in with additional changes.
more signage and so on.
When was that put in place?
This was on Friday, last Friday, I can't say.
Is that when you sent the email or is that when you put the changes in place?
SPEAKER - 1:12:44
No, I put changes in place because he contacted me on Thursday night.
Straight away I sent an email to the licencing team that I will be attending the hearing.
I sent an email on Thursday night to the licencing team.
Friday morning I went to his witnesses, trained all the staff,
I went through all the matters under Licencing Act 2003 and some additional trainings.
And I put up all the signs and everything on Friday.
Everything was done on Friday and I take the photographs and everything.
I create the report and send it to the police officers, I believe on Saturday night.
So these are very recent changes as a result of your investigation.
Exactly. Very, very recent.
Thank you. That's mine.
Any from Calpashid?
I've got one that I will make, but I've got a couple of two.
The first question is going to be this.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:13:31
As regards your client's friend who employed other people,
how long did he work for your clients?
And the second question I'm asking is this.
The friend who was... the alleged illegal immigrants who was employed,
how long were they employed for?
When did he start working? When did he finish, please? Thank you.
The start of the employment in his shop.
For the friend.
SPEAKER - 1:14:00
After he left the country, I don't know the date,
I'll let you know after that.
Do you know when you employed this person?
How did your friend employ this person?
Do you know the date?
21st of June.
15th to 20th of June.
Let me put it in this way. For example if I'm going to leave the country on Monday
and I say to this man here, you can run the shop for me while I'm away for two weeks.
I need to start on Monday and on Tuesday he employs that man there.
How long was that man there employed for?
For his employees for a week, two weeks, a month, three months, signals?
From around June 20th till 13th of July.
June 30th, I see.
This year? No, no, this year.
I'm going to be in the 20th, 25th, 25th.
Thank you.
Are the authorities going to be taking any action against your clients
in respect to the employment people contributing what the law says?
Yes.
They are.
Sorry?
They are.
Are the authorities going to be taking action against your clients
for employing someone illegally.
You'll be now.
We haven't heard anything from any authorities regarding the matter.
OK, thank you.
I guess you might be.
OK.
I'll give you a question.
Can you give me a question?
Microphone C - 1:15:38
So you said the member of staff was employed about June time,
about the 15th of June.
Yes.
May.
May.
I was going to say, because you left the country on the 19th.
So just to be clear, the member of staff was taken out of employment after your return to the UK?
No, after the...
So when was that?
That was on 13th July.
13th July.
How long have you held an alcohol licence, been the holder?
Alcohol licence since January 2024.
So since 2024, I take it you would have been fully appraised of all the under age sales
policies, change 25, employing staff and being able to train them in those policies, yes?
So my question is why have all the things that have been put in place only been in place since you've been employed since Friday?
You would have had the ability to train those people or anybody that's working for you in those policies
and to actually put things in place like training records to make sure that they are competent in what they're doing.
but it's only since Friday that you've now put all those policies into place?
I can answer that, officer.
I confront him why he didn't do the certain training records.
SPEAKER - 1:17:18
He said he verbally trained all the staff
and I saw some of the paper works in his book,
some of the staff were signed off that had been trained,
but it's when somebody externally come and train them,
get their signature and certify them.
The staff took it a little bit more serious.
So that is why I formalised everything,
their signature, my signature, everything.
So it's slightly more formalised and they took it serious.
Before that, staff just verbal training
and very minimum recording,
which is an oversight.
but he accepts that it's not completely covered in the past.
Microphone C - 1:18:06
In my experience, it is how the training is put over to how seriously it's taken.
And if it's not put over in a professional manner
and emphasising how serious this is
and what the consequences of what could happen if you fail to do something,
i .e. children going to hospital,
then that's the failing on the licence holder.
That is exactly, I just want that, sorry.
That is exactly what happened on Friday.
All the consequences, examples of caseworks
were put in front of the staff.
What are the things happened?
SPEAKER - 1:18:41
What are the things I have seen when people fail
to do whatever they're supposed to do
under the Licencing Act 2003?
Everything was explained to the staff,
almost three or four hours they spent the time in front of me.
They signed the paper works to confirm that they've been trained
and they are responsible for the alcohol sales.
Also, all the authorisation under the Licencing Act
is being signed by the DPS and the staff.
Everything is documented on the premises.
Any further questions?
Just one more.
Obviously, you've taken the time on Friday to deliver this training.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:19:18
Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:19:19
That may cover the existing staff.
What assurances do we have that you'll be there to train any new staff
or be there to renew training, as it were?
Obviously, with councils and things,
we have various bits of training that we're expected to renew on an annual basis.
How can we guarantee that this isn't just a one -off stick in the plaster?
Thank you, Councillor. It's a good question.
When I train the staff, I not only just train the staff,
SPEAKER - 1:19:48
I also train the licence holder DPs,
the responsible people management and everybody.
And also I leave refresher training documents,
so it's up to the management,
unless they have licence conditions,
which is happy to take if that's the case,
unless there is a licence conditions,
they need to do the refresher training
and record the refresher training,
and when you're six months or whatever the time,
management thinks it's appropriate.
So I left the document with them,
and also if there's a new starter,
If the licensee or the DPS are confident from whatever the training they had to train the
newcomer or they will arrange external trainers, it could be anybody.
Anybody who can train.
So that's something the management decision and they have to do this under the licence
condition.
This is why, Councillor, we are going for this time limited licence.
So, rather than taking somebody's livelihood,
again, they've done the mistake,
to give you an assurance if any authorities walk into the premises in the future
and if someone there, without the training, is at court presence
or right at other conditions,
then when we come back for the licence, you have a clear cut.
So, that's why we're asking a second chance.
Thank you. Any other questions from anybody?
By all means, you can...
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:21:12
You made the comment that previously the staff perhaps weren't taking the training seriously,
Microphone D - 1:21:16
so the question was how did your client know or what was he doing to ensure that the members
of staff were following the instructions?
For instance, how did he know they were doing the Challenge 25?
Because all these policies and all these instructions are only worth it if they're actually doing
it and obviously not knowing what's going on with any thought in the store.
Thank you, officer.
Part of the training, what we have suggested for the management, they need to cheque the
refusal entries if there is any sort of gaps or any sort of, like a longer period, there
SPEAKER - 1:21:44
is no, I normally advise them to cheque it every Sunday and sign off the record.
If they see any difference, they need to ask questions and randomly cheque the refusal record
and the CCTV to make sure what the staff wrote is exactly true.
So this is some part of the training.
It's very hard to say whether staff took the training serious or not
when he was doing it.
Now he realised that.
In this case, he never had any other issues with the previous staff.
In this case, this was the temporary staff.
It's not been assessed by my client.
That's what he's doing going forward,
but was he doing anything before to make sure staff were following instructions?
Microphone D - 1:22:23
Probably, I think you can see from his refusal records,
SPEAKER - 1:22:29
He signed as well the Challenge 25 refusal reports,
staff signature and his signature.
I noticed there's some signatures from him.
He was monitoring the refusal book time to time,
maybe not regularly, but time to time he was checking those.
Yeah, thank you.
What we noticed in relation to the incident on the 23rd
Microphone B - 1:22:56
and also the 31st, is that before and after both of those dates,
there were actually entries within the refusals book
made by that member of staff, signed by him.
And within the entry that says essentially a description of what took place,
he had entered in under 20, he had entered in under 25.
So there had been some form of direction to him.
There had to be perhaps maybe a basic level of
This is what you do so perhaps you can see why we've looked at that
And then it's kind of reaffirmed our belief that perhaps he's being selected with who he's making those sales of alcohol to
Because prior to the date he's doing a refusal as we would expect and it's not spot -on. It's not like
Challenge 25 he's not saying challenge 25
I don't think it's more in -world or in -world,
from an easy to the...
I can only comment on the one I saw on the day that I did the visit,
but it just seemed that he was making those refusals before,
and so all of a sudden on this day...
And that's why it supports our idea that does he recognise this customer
as somebody who's been...
A repeat customer, essentially?
Is that why there's some level of trust between the parties?
Is there some kind of,
I'll do this sale, I know you probably won't report it.
And had one of those children not become so unwell,
they might well have not reported it.
Do you see what I mean?
It gives us an idea that what planning is going behind in the background
as to who I will sell alcohol to, who I will refuse,
how will I make it look a certain way in my refusals lock
because it gives us a, that raises really big concerns
for us, it doesn't seem like it's been a policy
that's been evenly applied across the,
across the, all the different customers that visit,
it just seems to be quite selected to certain people,
but other people will sell to.
It raises a number of questions from a global perspective.
It's, sorry, if I just add to that, yes.
SPEAKER - 1:25:14
You have a reason, a clear reason to say that.
I saw that in your email as well,
you touched onto that, I discussed with that matter.
From what he, the conversation he had with staff,
that he refused it, again, we have no way to clarify that.
But one thing, I didn't mention that on my statement
earlier on, because I don't want to add salt to the wound,
because what parents go through, I'm a parent, I can see,
I can't explain that.
But these two, the young children,
they repeat, they came back to the store again
and asked for alcohol and he was banned,
the pandemic was refused.
So, he gets...
not a lot, time to time, the local people,
they come and try that, he constantly refuses that,
when they refuse it, he gets something back from them
and threatening them to make complaints and stuff,
is something they face time to time.
But whatever happened just by the staff
during that short period of time,
it is a very serious matter,
but it is not the regular practise.
That's what he was trying to say.
I understand that.
Microphone B - 1:26:27
I think it supports perhaps a more continued way of working
in that we found issues not only on just one single day,
It was on the 23rd and also the 31st and completely sympathised with the family related storey
in relation to his loss.
That's horrific.
But yeah, it's a real concerning, I mean the safeguarding as much for those children as
for him.
If I had a severe bereavement, which is probably the worst that any family could go through
and for his employees not to come round to him and support him separately to licencing.
That's its own concern I think.
Before we leave can I ask you a question?
You said from last Friday you put everything in place.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:27:18
Can I ask you in the last week how many refusers have you refused at the shop?
Since last Friday you telecommitted here today,
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:27:29
you put new practises in place etc etc etc
and there is in the paperwork
consensus within the community that the only youngsters who can go to this shop
are just wondering how many refusals you've had in the last week please
roughly
Dave I've known you lately people go into your shop I ask where I'm going
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:27:49
Since you had that Mr David?
Microphone B - 1:27:54
Sorry yeah just one quick one
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:27:56
Microphone C - 1:28:00
So since Friday you've gone through the training, sorry going back to the training,
you've gone through the training, made sure he understands what needs to be trained
and how to monitor that training and that you've now got records all in place
to keep records of the training.
That is one of the conditions on the licence since 2024.
So that's a failing on your part as licence holder that they have never been going to
place until Friday and if they had been in place you could prove that the staff were
trained to a sufficient standard to recognise a sale like this and to refuse it.
Thank you any further comments from anybody?
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:28:50
Can I have an opportunity to sum up?
By all means, BT Goodall.
Thank you.
Microphone B - 1:28:53
Thank you.
Let's not lose sight at what's at the heart of this case.
Children were sold alcohol.
It's not just a breach of licencing condition and law.
It's a serious risk to their health, safety and well -being.
Alcohol affects children far more severely than adults.
Their bodies and brains are still developing and even small amounts can cause serious harm.
It can impair judgement, coordination and decision making.
This increases the risks of accidents, injuries and risky behaviour,
including violence, self -harm and sexual exploitation.
In this case, one child ended up in hospital
from drinking vodka bought from the store.
That's not hypothetical harm.
It's real, immediate and dangerous.
The outcome could have been so different, it could have been fatal.
Beyond the risks, alcohol...
Beyond the physical risks, alcohol use in children is linked to long -term mental health
problems, poor social performance and increased likelihood of addiction later in life.
It can damage their futures before it has even begun.
The law is clear, alcohol must not be sold to children.
The licencing system exists to protect them.
When a licenced premises sells alcohol to minors, it doesn't just break the law, it
the trust with the community and put the vulnerable lives at risk.
For any licenced holder or GPS to suggest that it's in any way reasonable to allow a
friend to hire staff without regard to their legal right to work, without training, without
safeguards in place, it's more than just a failing.
It represents a complete abandonment of the responsibilities entrusted to them under the
licencing obligations.
This store didn't just fail to prevent them, it actively enables it.
That's why Kent Police believe that revocation of the licence is the only appropriate response in this case.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Do you have any questions from any members?
No. Thank you very much. We'll adjourn to consider. Thank you.

5 An application for a Review of a Premises Licence in respect of: Littlestone Store

Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:30:53
Thank you for being in the business while we adjourned.
Cllr Tony Cooper - 1:31:04
We considered using it during the morning and other restrictions.
However, based upon previous failures in the deception of the licence,
we were not adequately convinced or satisfied that the recently implemented changes
would protect children from harm and we decided to revoke the licence.
In coming to this decision, we have considered representations made by Ken Police,
10 trainees down at New Rumpetal Council,
Lightening Officers, the Lightening Sea and their representative.
Thank you.
I'm going to propose that.
I'll second.
All those in favour.
Thank you.