Licensing Act Sub-Committee - Friday 13 March 2026, 2:00pm - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting

Licensing Act Sub-Committee
Friday, 13th March 2026 at 2:00pm 

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
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Good afternoon, we will move to the first item which is the election of chair. Can I
have any nominations please?
I have a seconder.
I have a second.
All in favour. Thank you, Councillor, if you've been appointed chair, please could
you read the statement in front of you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon and welcome to the meeting in Leipzig, Schulte party.

1 Election of Chair for the meeting

This meeting will be broadcast live to the internet.
For those of you not wish to be recorded or filmed, you will need to leave the chamber.
The members, officers and others speaking at the meeting, it is important that a microphone
to use should be used and the webcast and the designer may hear you.
With anyone with a mobile phone, please switch to sound mode as they can be distracted.
I would like to remind members that although we have all strong opinions on matters of
under consideration, it is important to treat members, officers and public speakers with
respect. Thank you.
We go to the next item on the agenda, which is apologies for absence.
Is there any apologies for absence?
No apologies, Chair.
Okay. Is there any declarations of interest?
No.
Okay.
Next on the agenda is going to be the declaration of any lobbying.
Any lobbying being done?
No.
If not, then the item 5 is the application of the review of the premises licence in respect
of ABs, mini -marks and that is the considered application of review of a premises licence
at the point of review, seconded by the licence at Act 2, Article 3, made by PCO, Mr Vinglen
on behalf of Kent Police in respect of ABs, mini -mark in 1990, the Bookbally, focused
in CT23 and E. The letters of the Supremacy must be determined in the outcome of this

5 An application for a Review of a Premises Licence in respect of: AB's Minimarket

application.
Okay, this is Report No. DC2543, an application for a review of a premises licence in respect
of AB's mini -markets. To consider an application for a review of a premises licence under Part
Part 3, Section 51 of the Licencing Act 2003, made by PC Alistair Pringle on behalf of Kent
Police in respect of Abell's Mini Market 99, Enbrook Valley, Folkestone, CT 23 -NE.
Licencing subcommittee must determine the outcome for the application.
The committee is asked to consider the review application for the premises licence.
When considering the application, the committee must ensure 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 the report DC 2543 and
determine the application. The options for determining the application are set
out in section 5. The Licencing Act 2003 provides that the sale of or supply of
Alcohol on and off the premises and other licence
by 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.
AB's mini -market was first issued a premises licence
on the 24th of November, 2005.
More recently, various responsible authorities,
including licencing, police and training standards,
have carried out both individual and joint visits
that have raised concerns.
During a visit in October 2024,
it was noted that the premises licence
was not in the current holder's name.
This was raised with the current licence holder
and an application to transfer the licence
and vary the DPS was received.
Due to a wait for the applicants
to provide missing documentation,
the applications were unable to be finalised until mid -December 2024.
A joint visit was conducted in November 2025, following reports of underage sales.
And during this visit, multiple concerns were identified,
highlighting significant shortcomings within the current operating schedule.
The current premises licence can be seen at Appendix 1.
Can police have submitted the request to review the premises licence, which could be seen at Appendix 2?
The reviewed request is in respect of the licencing objectives, the prevention of crime and disorder, 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 period,
and are made by the holder of the premises licence
in response to an application for a review of 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 AB's mini -market.
The Licencing Committee is considering an application for review.
It must have regards 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.
Representations have been received from interested parties and these could be seen at Appendix 3.
The licencing subcommittee now 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.
and revoke the licence.
The committee is asked to note that there 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 the four licencing objectives.
Any conditions must promote the licencing objectives.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Italian.
.
Thank you.
Can I just say, I was a PC, Kindle, and whatever formats you're looking for, you're suitable
for the way that you want to present it.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
My name is Alistair Pringle.
I'm a police officer.
I'm a police licencing officer with Kent Police.
Chair members, thank you for allowing me to present the position of Kent Police in relation
to the review of the premises licence for AB's mini market,
99, Enbrook Valley, Fochston.
Before I set out the evidence,
I want to make one point absolutely clear,
and I appreciate you have already,
I presume, read the packs and some of the evidence
in front of you in relation to the application.
Following the allegation that alcohol
had been sold to a 14 -year -old child,
Kent police were prepared to work with the licence holder immediately. Our
intention was to secure proper safeguarding measures without delay by
way of enforceable conditions. Conditions that were proportionate practical and
capable of significantly reducing the risks of underage sales. However this
requirement, this required engagement from the licence holder and that
engagement did not happen. Because no steps were taken we were unable to
reduce the risks despite clear warnings and as a result Kent Police were left
with no option but to call this review. The opportunity to strengthen the
licence and prevent further risks children was not taken up. This
ultimately led to a loss of confidence in the operator for this premises. This
review has been brought primarily on the grounds of the protection of children
from harm and prevention of crime and disorder licencing objectives.
Section 182 guidance states that the legislation provides a clear focus on the promotion of
the four statutory objectives, including prevention of crime and disorder and protecting children
from harm.
Our concerns arise from an allegation received on the 19th of October, 2025, recorded under
what we would call a CAD, CAD 19 -6688,
and CAD stands for computer aided dispatch,
which is a police record usually detailing
the initial contact with a member of the public.
Within your pack, it is exhibited as AP1
and can be found on pages 24.
The report details contact from a parent reporting that his 14 -year -old daughter had been able
to purchase alcohol from AB's Millie Market without any form of identification or age
verification being requested or shown.
The child entered the shop at around 5 o 'clock on the 18th of October, purchased three buzz
balls, vodka tequila drinks and rejoined her friends outside, all aged 14.
Buzz ball drinks are a cocktail mix with spirits.
They usually have an alcohol volume ABV of 15%.
This is significantly higher than many other popular alcoholic drinks.
For comparison, the average beer has an ABV of around 5%.
This means that a single Buzzball container has about three times the alcohol of a standard beer.
This alcohol content can be misleading because of its small size and sweet taste.
This is easy to consume quickly without realising just how much alcohol you are ingesting.
This can lead to faster intoxication and risk associated with alcohol consumption, especially
if a child was to have more than one.
In the words of the concerned parent reporting this incident, one of the girls became absolutely
smashed.
The child told her father she felt pressured by her peers to make the purchase and we also
now learn that she has difficulties, learning difficulties which increases her vulnerability.
Section 182 guidance is also clear that the ultimate responsibility rests with the premises
licence holder.
and it states, where sales of alcohol take place,
it is ultimately the responsibility
of the premises licence holder to ensure
that children and young people are protected from harm,
including by preventing sales to those under 18.
Licence holders must ensure that staff
are appropriately trained and that
suitable systems are in place to prevent underage sales.
The guidance also stresses that each objective
is of equal importance and the promotion
of the four objectives is a paramount consideration
at all times.
Here the obligation to protect a child was not met.
Following the allegation,
Kent Police and Trading Standards attended the premises
on the 3rd of November to review CCTV.
This immediately highlighted serious management failures.
Staff were unable to operate the system
and after considerable effort, we established
that the CCTV only retained seven days of footage,
preventing, and this part is important,
preventing confirmation or disapproval of that allegation.
Teal receipts were also only held for seven days,
which meant there was no record of the sale at all.
Whilst we were in attendance, we observed an ID cheque
that we believe should have been recorded as a refusal.
A female entered the shop and she was refused
an age -related product because she didn't have
any identification with her.
Likely because of our presence, she was rightly refused
and returned some 10 to 15 minutes later with identification
and we believe that should have been logged as a refusal.
Authorities requested to see the Refusals Book.
It was clearly not to hand and the staff member had to search various areas over several minutes
until it was eventually found.
It was completely blank and unused and this gave us no confidence that the age restricted
cheques were being carried out correctly.
Other than mandatory conditions, there are no conditions on the premises licence whatsoever
to demonstrate how this business would promote the licencing objectives.
As a result, on the 6th of November, I contacted the licence holder outlining our concerns,
advising her to submit a variation to add four proportionate and essential controls.
A robust CCTV requirement, clearly documented staff training, an accurate and maintained
refusals log, and a formal Challenge 25 policy.
These were the bare minimum safeguards.
No variation was submitted.
A follow -up email was sent on the 18th of November, again receiving no reply.
This correspondence can be seen within my exhibit AP2 and that can be found on pages
26 through to 28 of your agenda pack.
On the 27th of November, Kent Police and District Council licencing team attended again.
The licence holder was not present,
but her husband accepted a hand -delivered letter
setting out the urgent need for action,
and signed my daybook acknowledging receipt,
and we gave the licence holder until the 10th
of December to respond.
This letter is particularly important.
It was printed, it was delivered in person,
addressed to the licence holder,
it was clear, it was concise,
providing direction, reasoning, and a warning
that unless steps were taken by the 10th of December,
review papers would be submitted.
The letter is exhibited AP3,
found on page 30 of your agenda pack.
The letter was signed for as being received,
which is the signature on exhibit AP4,
which is page 32 of your pack.
On the 10th of December,
So the premises did email back and they emailed five images.
Those images were posters and two very brief training records.
We feel that these did not address the issues raised and did not demonstrate any meaningful
safeguarding measure.
I responded the same day reiterating that the necessary improvements must be added by
via a formal variation to the licence.
Again, no variation was submitted.
Those images can be seen, exhibit AP5 pages 33 to 35 of the pack.
And the response is back to the licence holder on page 36.
Given the complete lack of meaningful engagement, can police inform the premises on the 16th
of December that we would now submit a review?
Whilst now aware of the impending review, the licence holder sought representation
and submissions were made including staff training records and test results.
It is of course no surprise that following notification of the Kent Police
application paperwork addressing the points previously requested were then
put forward together with an agreement to to now accept conditions originally
proposed by Kent Police. However, the concern remains that this intervention
has come only after the review process has begun. The fear is that without
professional continued support, the premises will likely revert to its
previous practises. Therefore, regardless of the welcome late engagement, it's too
late and our concerns about the licence holders ability to uphold the licencing
objectives remain.
Chair and members, I must also highlight a history of non -compliance at the premises.
In October 2024, officers discovered that shop was being operated illegally under a
premises licence held by a completely different uninvolved company with a DPS who was not
working at the premises at that time.
Those running the business at the time included the current licence holder and a husband.
and they stated that they had been operating the shop
for approximately a year, despite having no authority
under the Licencing Act to sell alcohol.
Alcohol sales were being made with no authorised DPS,
no valid legal authority at all.
Whilst this matter was eventually rectified,
Kent Police had to provide warnings
and direct the premises that no further sales of alcohol
could be made until the correct paperwork had been submitted.
they were warned that to carry out the sale of alcohol
without the authorization of a premises licence,
that they would be committing an offence.
This background is highly relevant today
because it demonstrates a sustained pattern
of misunderstanding or disregarding
the most basic requirements of the Licencing Act,
undermining the crime prevention objective
referenced to in the 182 guidance.
I also need to draw your attention
to an earlier incident demonstrating long -standing safeguarding concerns.
And on the 15th of December, 2023, Trading Standards conducted a Challenge 25 test purchase
involving a vape.
The young test purchaser attempted to buy a vape without any ID.
The member of staff made the sale immediately without asking for any identification, without
asking the purchaser's age without checking whether the product could be lawfully sold.
Although the sale of a vape is not covered by the premises licence, it is an age restricted
product.
The failure to carry out any cheques at all demonstrates a wider, deep rooted concern
about the premises approach to all age restricted sales.
It shows that safeguarding concerns were present long before the alcohol allegation and that
the management have repeatedly failed to implement even the simplest protection for children.
Taking this all together, the vulnerability of a child, the likelihood that alcohol sale
did occur, the absence of safeguards, the blank refusal log, the lack of training, the
ineffective CCTV, persistent non -engagement,
the illegal trading history in the failed age
restricted vape test purchase,
can police have no confidence that these premises
are being run safely or responsibly?
Section 182 guidance states that the licencing authorities
must be able to take action against those premises
that are causing problems.
This is such a premises.
I now turn to the responsibilities of a DPS and a licence holder, roles which in this
case are held by the same individual.
Section 182 guidance states that the designated premises supervisor is the key person who
will usually be responsible for the day -to -day management of the premises, including the
prevention of disorder and the protection of children from harm.
It also states it will normally be the responsibility of the premises licence holder to ensure that
managers are competent and appropriately trained.
Given the repeated failures over a long period and the lack of corrective action taken, it
is clear that neither the responsibilities of the DPS nor the premises licence holder
have been met.
Because the same person holds both roles,
removing her would leave the same individual
in overall control of the premises.
It would not change the management culture.
It would not introduce the missing safeguards,
and it would not restore confidence.
For that reason, while removal of the DPS can be mentioned,
it's not a viable option in this case.
It is not capable of addressing the underlying concerns.
Kent Police therefore recommend revocation
of the premises licence.
And the revocation is necessary to prevent
future crime and disorder,
particularly further underage sales.
But even more importantly to ensure we do not permit
an environment where children are exposed to harm.
The alcohol effects on children are far more rapidly,
are far more rapid and severe than adults,
impairing judgement, increasing vulnerability,
placing them at immediate risk.
The evidence here demonstrates those,
demonstrates here exactly those dangers.
Given what has happened, I feel it's important today
that the committee hears directly
from the licence holder herself
about her understanding of her duties,
the licencing objectives, how she manages age,
restricted sales, how we find ourselves in this situation.
These are responsibilities that cannot be delegated,
apologies, to an agent or representative.
Kent Police believes that on the evidence before you today,
removal of the DPS would not resolve the issue because the DPS and licence holder are the same individual
and the root causes of the failings would remain.
Revocation therefore is a proportionate necessary option if you are not convinced that the premises is capable of safeguarding children and complying with the law.
These failures strike at the heart of the core licencing objectives.
The risks to children are too great and we cannot allow future illegal sales to occur.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, PG Pinkham.
Would you work with the difficult, please?
Thank you.
I'm here on behalf of the Licencing Authority.
I attended the joint visits to AB's mini market with Ken Police and Trading Standards
and my comments are based on what I witnessed directly.
From this visit it was clear the premises lacked the basic controls expected of a licenced
business.
Staff could not operate the CCTV system and footage was only retained for seven days.
The refusals book was blank and staff were unable to explain the absence of recorded
refusals.
Training records were incomplete and did not demonstrate an understanding of age verification
or safeguarding responsibilities.
These findings are particularly serious
in light of the reported sale to a 14 -year -old child
with no ID cheque.
That incident represents a clear breach
of the licence and objective of preventing children from harm.
Given the lack of systems in place,
there is a real risk of this happening again.
Despite repeated engagement from police,
the DPS did not take meaningful steps
to address these concerns.
No variation was submitted
to introduce appropriate conditions and the actions proposed later were insufficient and
did not resolve the issues.
Throughout this process, the DPS has shown a limited understanding of their responsibilities
and their levelling of engagement has been poor.
We also know earlier compliance issues in 2024 when the premises were operating under
the wrong licence holder.
Combined with the recent failings, this shows a pattern of weak management and a lack of
regard for the licencing objectives. In light of the evidence and my direct involvement,
the licencing authority is not satisfied that the premises is being managed responsibly.
We share the concerns raised by Kent Police. We ask the subcommittee to give full consideration
to robust action, including suspension of the licence, removal of the DPS or revocation.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much. Over to Mr Blair. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
My name is Andrew Blair, Youth Armed Reduction Officer with Kent County Council Trading Standards.
I appear today as a responsible authority under the Licence Act of 2003 to support the
application by Kent Police for the review of the premises licence at AB's Minnie Mark.
I would like to present the concerns of trading standards which relate directly to two of
the statutory licencing objectives, protection of children from harm and the prevention of
crime and disorder.
My representation is on page 40 of the pack or bundle.
Section 182 guidance is explicit that the protection of children from harm is the paramount
consideration where underage sales or access to alcohol are concerned.
Operators are expected to have robust safeguarding measures such as effective Challenge 25 procedures,
comprehensive and up -to -date staff training,
a refusal register, adequate CCTV coverage and retention,
active monitoring and management
by the premises licence holder and DPS.
Despite repeated advice and interventions
by both training standards and Kent Police,
AB's Minnie Mart has consistently failed
to implement or maintain these basic controls.
The history of the premises demonstrates persistent failures.
Four separate occasions over three years,
there were no staff training records available,
repeated absence or failure to maintain a refusal register,
despite written advice and warnings,
multiple visits where Challenge 25 posters or Statutory Notices were missing,
CCTV retaining only for seven days of footage contrary to best practise.
The discovery of a bottle of alcohol with no duty paid stamp raising concerns of illicit goods.
Numerous complaints relating to underage sales, out of date food and counterfeit vapes.
These issues are not isolated.
They show a continued unwillingness to follow legal obligations despite direct support and clear guidance.
Most concerning is the sale of vodka and tequila to a vulnerable 14 year old child.
With no ID requested and no age related cheques queued out.
Police subsequently reported that the alcohol was shared among a group of similarly young people
resulting in at least one becoming highly intoxicated.
Section 182 guidance makes clear that licencing authorities should take particularly firm action
where alcohol is sold to children.
As such, incidents represent a direct and serious breach of the licencing objectives.
Additionally, the business failed a formal Challenge 25 test purchase,
again without the staff member asking for ID or even querying age.
This demonstrates a systemic breakdown of safeguarding
and shows this is not a one -off incident.
The guidance emphasises that responsible authorities
should work with businesses to achieve compliance.
Trading standards has attempted this repeatedly.
Written advice provided.
Posters, Challenge 25 posters supplied.
Underage sales packs issued and explained,
follow -up emails sent with clear instructions,
test purchase warnings delivered in person.
Despite this, the licence holder has shown limited engagement
and has not responded meaningfully to advisory documents.
Even when a new refusal register was issued,
They remain unused.
Section 182 guidance is clear.
Where premises repeatedly fail to respond to advice, a licencing authority should consider
revocation or suspension as proportionate measures.
Given the seriousness, sorry, given the serious safeguarding concerns, the ongoing risks to
children and the consistent non -compliance trading standards believes the threshold for
revocation is met.
The premises has demonstrated poor management oversight, failed to uphold key legal responsibilities,
shown a pattern of disregard for essential safeguarding tools, caused real -world harm
to children in the community, Section 182 makes clear where premises consistently undermine
the licencing objectives, particularly involving children, revocation should be seriously considered.
In summary, Trading Standards does not believe the premises has demonstrated a willingness
or compatibility to uphold the responsibilities under the Licencing Act of 2003.
The failures have been persistent, serious and have resulted in significant harm to the
children in our community.
For these reasons, we fully support the review brought forward by Kent Police and respectfully
ask the committee to give serious consideration to revocation of the
premises licence. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Blair. One minute to suggest to members of the
subcommittees that we hear from...
If you wish to say anything, can you tell us any questions you can ask later?
Is that okay? The questions may be. I mean, if you want a question about what's being said, please do.
And then we'll ask the members of the subcommittees if they've got any further questions from there to ask them
and then we'll be fine, which is what we're going to do.
Is that okay with yourself?
Yes.
Thank you, Councillor.
So my client, this is her family business.
She's been in this country for 12 to 13 years,
and this is her first business.
She's been running this premises
for the last few years, yeah.
She has a family and with three young children, she will never dream of selling alcohol to
anyone under age and according to her own words, she never did that in the past.
This is something she considered very serious matter and she will never did that and she
will never do that.
I totally respect the police position with regards to the review.
I can clearly see, since I start working with my client,
that they have spent enough time with this premises.
And on behalf of my client,
we are very sorry for the limited engagement.
The limited engagement with the authority
is not just something my client ignore.
The matter of fact is, it's her limited understanding
of the language and also the limited knowledge
with regards to the application process
and the minor variation, et cetera.
This is her livelihood.
This is her family livelihood.
This is the only income for the husband and wife.
The whole family depends on this business.
If I go back to the – there are lots of information being shared by the authorities.
If I go back to the history, Councillors, in a chronological order, before I do that,
I just want to mention one more thing which my client repeatedly mentioned to me since
I started working with them in early January this year, that they have another licence
premises. We don't have any evidence to provide. They have another licence or convenience store
nearby. They have a park nearby. They are in the middle of competitors and she gets constant
rude behaviour from the teenagers when every time she refused the alcohol, she personally
experience she's been told of, some rude words, and she created lots of
enemies among the teenagers. This is her own words and this is something that the
family is experiencing from running the business. They accept that that's
part of the job they are doing and they continue to do that. They get
constant harassment from the competitors, they come and cheque the prices, walk into
the stores, cheque the shelves and they believe there are lots of allegations made by the
competitors. Again, we have no direct evidence to provide that.
If I go back to the details, Councillor, in March 2023, there was an allegation of underage
wage sale. There was a complaint. That was in March 2023. Then three months later, there
was the advisory visit carried out by the trading standard.
An official outlined they provide the necessary advice,
paper works to my client.
So that was in June 2023.
Soon after that, two months later, Councillor,
they had a test purchase.
This is an underage test purchase carried out
by the lottery provider, Campbell at the time.
They carried out a test purchase and my client passed the test purchase.
I have provided the documentation to the licencing team.
That is the test. They faced a real test and they passed the test on age restricted product.
That was in August 2023.
In the same year, November 2023, there was a compliance inspection carried out by the trading standard.
I understand there was no refusal record book present on the premises. However, there were
refusing – there are courts on the till, they were refusing using a till prompt on
the actual cash till, they refused that. And they've been given additional materials at
the time, that is in November 2023, followed up by a notice for email to them about the
statutory tobacco notice was emailed to them a few days later.
As the training standard officers mentioned, in same year, 2023 December, there was a test
purchase carried out.
That was, it is not an underage test purchase.
It was a Challenge 25 compliance test purchase.
And the, yes, the compliance test purchase was failed.
They didn't cheque the ID, but they haven't sold to an underage.
And also I would like to point out, again, there is no disrespect to any authorities,
with a great respect to everybody in the room, Chair. This is not the condition on the licence.
They haven't breached the conditions. I understand they haven't followed the best practise.
But during all these time, the premises was not under the direct supervision of my client,
because the licence was on the previous leaseholder.
Her husband was working on the premises as the staff,
so they have involvement in the business,
but it wasn't under her direct licence,
direct control with regards to the management.
Then a month later, January 2024,
this is the time my client took over the business.
This is another point I just want to clarify at this stage.
The previous licence holder was a lease holder of the property
and my client is a sub -lease holder.
She took the sub -lease from the lease holder who is the previous licensee.
Since she took over the lease in early 2024,
the previous licence holder was still working on the premises
but not in that same full -time basis.
He was also involved in the premises.
They were still paying off for the lease to the person.
So with his permission, they were carrying on the business,
but he was still in the business.
It's not completely out of the picture.
But my client was working full -time,
both of them, husband and wife, working full -time.
The previous licensee was working part -time.
So this was the reason the licence
wasn't transferred to her name because she wasn't fully paid off the lease she was trying to take.
So in January 2024, when the premises was under her control,
there was an allegation of tobacco sale. Again, it is an allegation.
She's in the middle of a lot of competitors. And also, I'm not undermining the sensitivity
of the seriousness of underage sale. It's a very serious matter for my client and for
everybody. But what she is trying to say is, from her experience with the youngsters, every
time when she refused to get some returns from the youngsters, she was saying that from
From her experience, and I have seen this before as well, the people, the teenagers
sometimes they don't actually identify the premises, they actually can get what they
want.
So that is not always the case.
Again, I'm really sorry if I come across wrongly, but I'm not trying to undermine the seriousness
or the sensitivity of the nature.
But this is something the business owners unfortunately cross the country facing this.
The false allegations and vexations complained from the...
I'm not against the parents.
The parents are really concerned. I'm a parent too.
I'm not saying that.
The competitors, the vexations complained from the competitors
and sometimes the public.
It does happen, yeah.
Removing someone's livelihood,
which they put their whole of their life savings without the evidence,
it is not proportionate and is not appropriate.
So there was an allegation of underage tobacco sale
in January 2024, and as a result,
three months later, 2nd of April 2024,
there was an inspection carried out,
and during the inspection, the refusal book was checked,
and the CCTV was checked, and even during the time,
they have CCTV operating seven days a week.
The premises always had a week worth of CCTV throughout the time, even though there was
no conditions listed on the licence to have CCTV.
They always had the CCTV.
And also, I just want to add one more point.
They worked with the police on a number of occasions.
Whenever there is an incident happen, she can explain more if you want, in the neighbouring
pub, the police collected their CCTV in the past.
So, she worked with the police, provided the recordings all the time.
It might not be the same officer, probably different team.
The CCTV always had seven days of recording.
This was never been raised as a concern in the past,
and she hasn't breached any licence conditions so far.
So, the inspection carried out in April 2024, refusal book were checked,
CCTV was checked.
And then in October 2024, there was another inspection followed up by, I believe, trading standard.
During that time, the Challenge 25 poster was on display.
Tobacco warning signs was on display.
And this is the time they established that my client took over the business,
Even though the previous licensee working there, limited time, my client was the one
mainly running the premises.
And she received the advice at that time to make the transfer application and GPS variation.
She approached, she didn't know the details of making the application.
She approached her accountant and with the help of the accountant, she immediately lodged
the application.
She didn't ignore any advice.
So, they launched the application and the licence was transferred and the application
was made.
And in November 2024, there was another complaint about counterfeit waves.
Again, as a result, there was a follow -up inspection in March 2025, a few months later,
and there was no counterfeit waves were found.
And also, Chair, on 19th of October, so this is when the last incident the police officer
was outlining earlier on the allegation of underage cell.
Chair, my client, denying that she never sold alcohol to any minor.
She is not aware of this incident and if you look at the report from the police, Chair,
After this complaint, the police visited the premises.
My client didn't even refuse to provide any information.
She provided the CCTV.
I know there were some difficulties in viewing the footage straight away,
but when they managed to view it, it was only a week's worth of recording.
And because the inspection was carried out two weeks later,
it wasn't able to capture it.
So that was the situation.
she didn't deny any access to the recordings, they provide the recordings, but she never
sold this person or this individual chair. It is a difficult situation for her because
this is not something she actually allowed to happen in the premises. During the last
inspection when they view the CCTV, they provide all the – I appreciate all the effort the
police took to make a minor variation to the licence to add more conditions, which is the
right thing to do. She took everything to her accountant again. She didn't honestly
understand the process of minor variation and adding the condition. Initial understanding
is that she need to follow all of them.
And it's been followed since.
She took everything to the accountant.
Accountant took some time to go through all the details
and that is not the area of expertise for the accountant.
And whatever advice she received,
and she probably provide some information to police,
maybe later part of December, which is not complete.
I can see that it is not the complete information,
the police phone, the measures were not fully completed.
So, that is why the application for the review was made.
Again, with great respect, yes, it's the right process.
I understand that.
But since the application was made, she managed to contact me.
We carried out a full compliance.
Every conditions, whatever the authorities were asking, were put in place.
I provide the records there.
There was a training record.
Every staff and everybody in the management had a face -to -face training.
I spent the whole day, I even met the licencing officer at the premises on the day we carried
out the training.
It was a face -to -face training.
We discussed more than 30 items under the Licencing Act 2003 with some examples and
mistakes my clients made and all the issues.
We discussed detail.
At the end of the training, they also went through an assessment to make sure they understood
everything.
All the conditions that the police were asking were in practise for more than the last two
months since I visited the premises.
Everything was in practise.
They challenged 25 in full practise.
They were recording all the refusals.
I provided some of the copies.
I got the refusal book here if anybody wants to inspect that.
Training records are here.
I have seen the copies already anyway.
So, all of these measures that the police was asking were in practise since January,
Councillors. She totally understand she didn't fully complete the process. It is not her
intention to ignore all the advice, but due to her lack of understanding of the application
process and to lack of understanding of the language, she couldn't complete the process
properly.
Jadis, the
part of this, the compliance she went through, she actually did lots of measures more than what's been asked.
We have store policies, we have
multiple signs. I provide the photographs with my statement showing
Challenge 25 to proxy sale to all sort of measures.
The warning signs for the staff members and for the public
is all in place here.
So all I'm saying from the beginning, Chair,
with great respect to the authorities,
I know there was some lack of action on my client's part,
but if you look closely, Chair,
there was no conditions breached throughout the time.
And there was no test purchase.
My clients were never tested for underage sale.
Only time she was tested for underage sale
is by the Gambling Commission for age -restricted product, which she passed.
But she was never tested for underage sale,
even though there was lots of allegations.
Again, I'm not trying to blame any authorities.
These are the facts.
There were allegations about underage sale.
You understand that.
Allegations are allegations.
There are so many reasons behind it.
I'm not going to, because it's a very sensitive matter,
a very serious matter, I'm not going to comment
about the allegations, but the allegations, yeah.
My client, often told of by a number of teenagers
due to her refusal.
It is a different language for her, yeah.
In terms of training, they do constantly inform
on their staff to cheque the IDs.
They may not good in writing the training records.
It is even verbal if she has some difficulties
to communicate.
Writing the training records, she could have get some help,
that's what she did now, but recording the training
in a proper document in a different language,
she had some difficulties.
But she was very serious on underage sales.
She was revoking or suspending the licence
based on the allegation, we respectfully saying it's not appropriate, it's not proportionate.
The legal officers are here under the Licencing Act 2003, where the review is not a punishment
process, it's just to cheque the premises is undermining the licencing objectives or not.
At the moment, for the last two months, premises is complying with all the measures proposed
by the authorities and we have trained the staff, we have provided the evidence for that.
Anyone who went through all these things, they're not going to do this mistake in the
future.
This is their livelihood, sir.
The family is dependent on this.
I know there is a request of changing the DPS.
They are happy to do that.
There is no problem.
They can employ someone with a personal licence holder
and take over their licence responsibility.
But what she was saying, this is her livelihood.
She is the one who will be very strong in looking after this.
And she is the one who has been going through this
for the last few months and spent a lot of money on that.
She believes she is the right person
because she will never make this mistake.
But if the panel wants to change the details,
she is more than happy to do that.
All the measures are in place here.
She is requesting the panel not to destroy the livelihood based on allegations without
any direct evidence.
Thank you, Chair.
I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
Julie, please, so trading standards, so the right of the parties, do you want to come
back on that?
Yes, please, Chair.
There's a couple of things, whilst, sorry, you've been talking, I've written down, and
When you mention language being a consideration and an issue, I'd just like to ask if the
licence holder took any steps to use any translation services in respect of any of the correspondence
that we have sent her or whether she has sought any.
I know the answer in respect to myself with Kent Police, but had she looked or thought
or considered asking for further explanation in relation to what was actually being asked
is my first point and I've got a few if that's okay, Chair.
Thank you, officer. The only advice she got every time when she received any documentation,
she took it to the accountant and talked to the accountant because that's the only person
she had to get some advice at that time.
Thank you, Chair. I understand that there's some antisocial behaviour. I'd like to ask
if those were matters that were reported to the police.
Certainly, refusing sales can be really confrontational,
and I think it really emphasises the requirement
for those training requests which were put forward initially.
I understand that part of the refusals was a till prompt.
Are those till prompts, can you perhaps explain
a bit more about it.
Is it a, did they show ID, did they not, was it sold,
was it not, can we have a bit more detail
in respect to what the TIL prompt said?
And also, if there's any records relating to that TIL prompt,
have they been kept at all?
With regards to the TIL prompt, I
need to ask my client for the detail.
For that first question, I asked the same thing,
have you ever reported to this?
The answer she gave me at the time,
She didn't report anything because she took this
as a part of a trade most of the time
and she refused someone not ID,
she just say a few words and walk to the next door shop.
So I mean, she can elaborate more if you want,
but she never took that personally and reported to it
then she would have reporting this on a regular basis.
So yes, she didn't do that.
With regard to the till prompt, I need to answer.
Sorry.
the table. Sorry, Councillor4L intimacy.
ALM Louis Umulnecessary.
reconstruction
So what she was saying is whenever they can
the age restricted product, the Intel will say cheque
ID yes or no. If they don't provide the ID they press no and cancel, avoid the sale.
But they never print out the report out of the till, but in the till they can see all
the refusal records there, so they never try to print it out as a hard copy.
Thank you. One of your points in relation to the allegation around the alcohol sale.
I just want to clarify that we're saying that that could not be proven, but it was likely,
you know, it's the safeguarding behind that allegation.
When we talk about the CCTV only being held for seven days, well, that CCTV is as much
to protect the public as it is to protect the operator
of the business because you are right that there are people
that do make up allegations, that that does happen.
I'm not so sure with the detail that I've got
in respect to this allegation that it's malicious.
I just was not able to further that investigation
and I just want to make that point that actually
The CCTV is not all about us.
It's about the operators as well.
And that's why we're saying it is so important
to protect you, to protect your staff.
So the seven days is a concern.
And also we have investigations which will take
at times longer than seven days for us to get to the door
to ask for the footage.
We often have late reporting.
We have victims in hospital with injuries
that don't report until two weeks later.
so that the general standards are 28, 30 days.
So that's why we sought that as a condition initially.
With all respect, my,
I still have an issue with
the matter of not understanding the direction,
language issue or no language issue,
because there are options to sort translation
or advice or even conversations back with me saying,
I don't understand this.
And that might have actually changed our tact,
but it's led to this kind of,
well, we have somebody who we're trying to
go through a staged approach with and support and advise,
but we're not getting anything back,
so we were kind of, we were put in a corner
with our options.
And recording refusal is, as I'm sure you would have advised your client, in her best interest is her due diligence.
It protects against any false allegation or allegation in malice.
I guess that wasn't really a question, was it?
It was more of a statement.
but my main point from that is we're not saying
it was an absolute proven sale.
We think it's ultimately a real shame
that we couldn't disprove it, but we couldn't disprove it.
And that's our problem, and that's why we sought
the cooperation from the licence holder,
which we didn't get, which we find ourselves
in this position.
Thank you.
I share the same, the CCTV is a strong thing. She has two major frustrations. Frustration
is a seriously understatement regarding this case. First frustration, the CCTV is seven
days. She was arguing with her husband about the CCTV matter, why we didn't have
more than seven days and because it wasn't an issue for the last
two or three years, they didn't even think about extending that to more than seven
days. It is their mistake not to have, even though it's not a licence condition,
that was her serious frustration, why we didn't have the CCTV recording more than
seven days, it would have resolved the matter from day one.
The second major frustration she had,
when she received all the paper works in December last year
from the police officers, she didn't get the right advice
from the right people.
She relies on her accountant and the advice she received
was a licence related, licencing act 2000 related.
So that's why she, her genuine understanding was that
the measures on the letter to make a minor variation,
she thought those are the measures she wanted to follow
in the future and she start following that
instead of making the application.
She didn't get that minor variation application part
and she wasn't received that.
She didn't receive the advice
because she didn't go to the right person.
It is again the oversight of the applicant.
It's not anybody else's mistake.
It's the oversight of the business
and the CCTV also the oversight of the business.
She could have done it, she didn't do it.
That's a mistake on our part.
We accept that.
So can I just clarify, is the CCTV now set to 28, 30 days going forward?
Thank you, Chair.
The first part is just coming back to what PC Pringle
alluded to was the language capability.
I know personally, trading standards,
yes we do enforcement, but primarily we are there
to support a business as much as we can.
That's why we supply to Change 25 posters,
statutory tobacco notice, under age sales packs.
that the underage sales pack details how to do training,
how to do refusals, what to look for, all the due diligence.
With language capabilities, if that was highlighted to even myself,
I would get that translated.
So there is always something there and it should have been highlighted,
which would have maybe saved today.
One thing I would like to ask is, I think you said in the last two months all the policies
have been implemented.
Why has it taken so long?
In November we visited the store due to the underage sales complaint.
As a responsible licence holder, if you've got three authorities coming into your business
and highlighting that there has been an allegation
of underage sales, surely that would have given
a red flag to do something about your business.
Why has it taken so long?
Thank you, officer.
It's not, we didn't take two months to do that.
They have all, before I involved,
I involved in the business, I believe,
in 15th of January, I believe, is on the training record.
Before that, they have fixed the CCTV,
straight away when they had an inspection. They have started following the Challenge 25 straight
away when they've been given all the conditions to make the minor variation application. They have
started implementing that. But everything was documented. I'm confirming on behalf of my company
that when I carry out the training, when I did the compliance inspection and everything is recorded
from January and the last two months they were following every single condition, whatever the
officer was requesting on his letter. But even before I joined in December they have, correct me if I'm wrong,
you have fixed your CCTV and they have started following the Challenge 25 policy even though it
wasn't on their licence they started doing that.
Q. You showed the CTB out 28, 30 days. What about the tool receipts? Because it says in
the report that there is no purchase or no record beyond seven days. What's happened
on that, please?
The till report, again, I need to double cheque with them. I asked them about the till record
before. The accountant has the access to till records for the taxation papers, so they can
on their back is online, it's a cloud service.
So they download it.
They never put their hands on the TIL record,
but can I ask them, can you provide a TIL report?
And then we go to the group.
Three months, yeah.
Three months, I believe.
And then every three months,
and typically anywhere three months.
And then we can do it every March.
After, we do it after three months,
and then, for three months, to delete the identity
or to add over the years completely.
So, according to accountants' advice,
their till receipt are online for three months.
So, we can always go back to the three months record
because they do the taxation every three months
and they get the copies of that.
It can be tracked back.
Thank you.
Back to Mr Bickel.
I've got nothing else, Chair, thank you.
And for Mr Bickel.
I just want to ask, we've never received any variation to the licence, so the licence is
like you said, there's nothing on it.
So is this something that you were looking to do to actually make the licence a bit more
robust?
Because this is the frustration.
The additional conditions, Chair, if we manage to secure the licence, we are happy to include
it through this review process, or if you want us to make a variation application, we
are more than happy to do that.
Yeah, whichever way you want to do that, we can do that.
Since we start the review process, we didn't put the minor variation across, but we were
following the conditions for the last two months or so.
So it can be imposed.
I think it's just frustrating, like PC Punga said.
We've been requesting this, and the concern is the language barrier,
and even going forward, that would still be a concern about the language
and the understanding of what's expected as a licence holder.
That's the concern, isn't it?
Yeah. When I say language barrier, they are not completely don't understand.
I mean, you probably, officers communicate with them.
The language issue comes in when we go into the technicality.
the technicalities under the licencing at 2003.
That is where it's become more difficult for them to understand,
you know, the breaches and application process and everything.
But now they've been through, so any issues, they will seek the right advice.
And that is where they are confident that they can promote
the licencing objectives moving forward.
Thank you.
I'll ask any language issues.
Do you see the conditions in the computer?
Yeah, thank you, Chair.
I've just got a couple of points and questions this time.
Regardless of language issues, our position and our concern is lack of taking on board
recommendations and direction.
And I think as a business owner and a licence holder, it's really important that that's
understood.
And I say that again with respect, regardless of language issues.
It's a concern, and the committee will have to have faith that each of the licencing objectives
are understood and that they're promoted and not undermined.
So the first question is how can we have faith in that?
My next question is a very blunt one.
The licence holder's personal licence exam,
what language was that taken in and where was it taken?
Thank you.
I will let her answer the personal licence question after that.
The first part, to answer the question, officer, thank you so much.
I would say, again, with great respect,
she's not, sorry, Ignorance is the right word,
she's not intentionally avoid any directions,
because when she was advised in October 2024,
regarding the DPS variation
and transfer licence application,
she immediately did that.
If this is the role of premises,
they would have ignored that and carried on.
Say immediately, they sort this out,
when it was requested in October last year.
She took that serious and did that.
When the minor variation issue came in,
that was during the December time,
late November, December time,
there was a Christmas period, the shop is busy,
the accountant was shocked for some time,
so there was some few weeks delay
to get the right advice and doing things properly.
Again, Ambian, she's not saying this as an excuse.
This is her oversight, but there was a mitigating circumstances surrounding that.
She's not a type of person who will ignore the authorities.
She worked with the authorities, she worked with the police in the past.
Whenever there was an incident in the pub next door, they collect the CCT and everything.
So I don't want to repeat everything, but yes, with great respect to the officer's question,
she's not that type of person.
It is her family business, Councillors, end of the day.
her family relies on this income.
She's not going to jeopardise that
by undermining the licencing objectives.
I'm gonna ask my client to answer the personal licence.
The personal licence exam, she had a training, but the training was translated, but the exam
you took in English language.
Thank you, yeah, thank you for that point, Chair,
as well, for allowing me to ask it.
Can I just confirm, so the issues that brought around
the transfer initially, can I just clarify,
that wasn't a request, that was law.
Thank you.
Thank you, any members of the committee
got any questions, Council Jones?
Yep, I mean, I do have concerns about the catalogue
of events, it's not just a single event we're looking at here and that obviously things haven't been rectified as they should have.
I think the thing that bothers me is in the police report, where the daughter said her friends had been served there before and
they frequently bought alcohol in that place. So this is not necessarily an isolated incident.
it's not good to have a reputation for that,
for selling alcohol to underage people.
How is the business looking at changing that reputation
so that the lessons can be put to good for our members?
I asked about the reputation and the customer relationship
when I met them first time.
She said that even though she was managing the premises
for the last, since early 2024,
her family was worked in the premises for some time.
Her husband worked in the premises for some time
under the previous licensee.
So they knew most of the local residents
and they have a very good relationship with the local residents.
And she had occasions when the parents came and thanked
for not serving the alcohol for the minors
and she kind of explained that.
I know language is not going to be completely clear
but she will try her best to explain that.
She was very frustrated that,
don't know why this complaint came,
and the only thing she can think of,
it's because of the response she gets
when she refused the alcohol for teenagers.
Someone made false allegation
and identified a false premises
because of the previous response she had from the teenagers.
She can explain that a little bit more if you want to counsel her, but she doesn't know
why this complaint was came in first place.
I think it's, I just, I find it concerning because it forms part of the child becoming very ill.
Yes.
And it's not a direct aggregation, it's just a kind of, this is what happened, we're used to buying alcohol here.
That is a big concern to me.
So if you want to expand on that.
Do you want to say anything?
Okay.
.
Yes, just one more question, Chair, thank you. You mentioned that it's most probably
fixatious or false claims that the alcohol by the 14 -year -old girl was purchased there.
I do know the area and that is the only convenience store there. It's not like a high street where
there's various stores that you could actually blame. The nearest place to there would either
Tesco's or down in Sandgate which is quite a distance away there is another
store there but I don't think they sell that sort of alcohol there
I'm not sure.
...to, it's, they, when she entered the premises,
on the right -hand side there's a parade of shops,
but one of them is an off licence.
To strike more laws, right?
It has very limited alcohol sales in there.
Yeah.
the last tomorrow when they're very limited.
Yeah, it is very limited, officer.
But when she was
there, she was mentioning every time
and she was refused the tobacco or anything.
People walk straight to that shop.
That's what she told me.
So that's the premises.
That's the premises came and
have some problems with her in the past as well.
I might ask a couple of questions. The first question I want to ask is did you say that
your clients are in another business? Is it a public store or something? So what do you
think of the business? Does that collect alcohol licence?
Is there any particular reason why your client didn't refuse the refusal because she was getting real abuse?
She was doing the refusal for some time and after that she stopped it. It is a mistake on her part.
I think according to the police report, when they were visiting in 2024, they find refusal
records and since that, in the final inspection, there was no refusal record.
There was a refusals book which was completely crisp.
It was unopened.
It was blank.
It was unused.
made perfect.
Thank you for that. Can you tell me, given your representative there, what's your name,
sorry? No, no, no, it's okay. Sorry, my name. Given your representative there, it's said
that the North Putnamans is supported there, you've got these policies and everything else
in place. How many of you feel this? I mean, I'd say generally everybody feels.
Thank you.
Anything further you wish to add or you can't wish to add before we retire?
Do you want to add anything else before we retire?
No, absolutely.
Sure.
.
Any further questions for members?
Okay, shall we retire?
Chair, sorry, can I have an opportunity to sum up?
I beg your pardon, yes, by all means.
Thank you.
Chair members, the evidence before you shows a clear and consistent pattern of failures at this premises.
Those failures likely placed children at direct and immediate risk of harm.
You've heard that a 14 year old child on balance of probability was able to buy strong alcohol
without challenge, resulting in one of the children becoming, in her father's words,
absolutely smashed, as I said before.
The purchaser was under peer pressure, vulnerable, and left wholly unprotected.
At the same time, the premises had no safeguarding in place, no functioning Challenge 25 system,
no meaningful staff training,
a complete blank refusal log,
and CCTV inadequate that the sale
could not even be verified or disproven.
This incident does not stand alone.
The premises had been illegally trading
for approximately a year in our view.
With no authorised DPS,
there was a failed age restricted vape test purchase,
not a licensable activity,
but still an indicator of a complete lack
of age -checking culture, and the premises licence holder
repeatedly failed to engage despite clear proportion
advice, multiple opportunities were given
to put that right.
You also heard that the same individual is both the DPS
and the licence holder.
Guidance states that the DPS is the key person
for the day -to -day management of the premises,
including prevention of disorder and protecting children
from harm, the key individual, and I think that point
is particularly important at this stage.
And that the licence holder must ensure
management is competent and trained.
Neither duty has been met.
Removal of the DPS would not change
the management of the premises.
She would still retain control.
Chair and members, the licencing objectives,
particularly the protection of children from harm
and prevention of crime and disorder
have been repeatedly and seriously undermined.
Nothing meaningful has changed
despite every opportunity being given.
The risks remain, and these are ongoing risks.
For those reasons, Kent police submit
that the revocation is necessary and proportionate step.
It's the only outcome that will ensure children
are not exposed to future and further harm,
and unlawful sales cannot occur again at these premises.
Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

5 An application for a Review of a Premises Licence in respect of: AB's Minimarket

to apply the conditions to the writers in accordance with page 30 of the report back.
If you've only noticed, the police would like to answer that, please.
Would the... Would you... Would you all pray that we share anything together in accordance with page 30?
Right. We're minding to impose the conditions on page 30 of the report back,
which is the four conditions suggested by the police,
last month before I was head beer.
Do you disagree with that?
So you're happy for that to happen?
Thank you.
Thank you very much everybody.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
.