Agenda item

Hardy's Wine 97 Streatham Hill, SW2 4UD (Streatham Hill)


Presentation by the Licensing Officer


The Sub-Committee was informed that this was an application for a review of the current premises licence. The Sub-Committee’s attention was drawn to chapters 2, 3, 9, 10 and 11 of the Statutory Guidance, and to Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 19 of the Statement of Licensing Policy, as the ones particularly relevant to this application. The options available to the Sub-Committee were set out in paragraph 5.10 of the report on page 20 of the agenda papers.


The Licensing Officer confirmed:


  • This was an application for a review of the premises licence requested by Bernard Conmy, Lambeth Trading Standards Officer, which had been held by Ms Faiza Pervaiz
  • The review had been brought on the grounds of the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety following contraventions associated with the premises.  A copy of the review application and supporting documents were outlined from pages 29-46 of the agenda papers
  • Two representations in support of the review application had been received from Lambeth Licensing and Lambeth & Southwark Public Health.  The last date for submission of representations was 21 April 2016
  • The responsible authorities’ concern was the sale of counterfeit vodka, which was unfit for human consumption.  A substantial quantity had been stored by the management in the neighbouring premises.
  • On 12 January 2016 Ms Faiza Pervaiz and her partner Mr Mohammed Pasha both pleaded guilty at Camberwell Green Magistrates’ Court to offences. Ms Pervaiz pleaded guilty to two offences of failking to register a food business. Mr. Pasha pleaded guilty to offences under the Trade Marks Act 1994 and the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013.  Mr Pasha was sent to the Crown Court for sentencing and received a suspended sentence.
  • On 5 April 2016 applications to transfer the premises licence and vary the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) to Ms Rabia Pervez were submitted to the licensing authority. A copy could be found on pages 61-74 of the agenda pages; and


Presentation by the Applicant


Mr John Bradbury, Principal Trading Standards Officer, informed the Sub-Committee that:


  • In view of the very serious matter of counterfeit alcohol, the decision had been taken to bring a review to the Sub-Committee.  However, just before the hearing he held discussions with the licence holder’s solicitor and agreed conditions to be imposed on the premises licence.  He was now satisfied that this would prevent further issues; and
  • Mr Bradbury then proceeded to hand out the revised conditions to the Sub-Committee.  He explained that minor amendments had been made to paragraphs 3, 8, 23 of the conditions.  Also, paragraphs 5 and 15 had been removed. 


In response to questions from Members, Mr Bradbury confirmed:


  • As the premises was a small family run business with only one staff member who was capable of operating the store, he felt it unfair to the licence holder to also have a personal licence holder present at all times.  He believed that condition 22, which related to training, sufficed to avoid that need;
  • No discussion regarding induction training had been discussed.  However, as a new licence premises holder had been engaged, an assurance had been made that only legitimate alcohol would be purchased.  Staff members did not cause the original problem;
  • Condition 15 was a duplication of condition 6, hence the reason for that condition being deleted;
  • The amendment to paragraph 3 of the condition not to sell beer/ciders over 1.5 litres had been made to deter street drinkers.  It was felt that a reasonable limit had been included on the conditions regarding alcohol;
  • He was uncertain how effective imposing similar conditions had been in previous cases where counterfeit alcohol had been seized;
  • As his colleague Mr Conmy had been dealing with the case, he was uncertain how many meetings with the DPS had taken place, as the case had only been brought to his attention a day before the hearing; and
  • Mr Mohammed Pasha was responsible for purchasing the counterfeit alcohol, and it was felt that Ms Faiza Pervaiz’s role was one of lesser culpability.  Therefore, Condition 1 did not seek to exclude her from running the business.  On being referred to page 35, paragraph 9 of the agenda papers, Mr Bradbury then confirmed that Ms Faiza Pervaiz was one of the directors of the business, her name could be added to paragraph 1 of the conditions.  At this point the premises licence holder confirmed her agreement to the request.


In response to a question from the legal adviser regarding condition 22, Mr Bradbury agreed that refresher training every eight weeks considering the size of the business was too excessive and would be happy to negotiate.



Presentation by Interested Parties


Mr Robert Gardener, Licensing Manager, said that:


·         In light of the case, he was now content with the proposed conditions, subject to agreement by the Sub-Committee, as he considered them to be substantial;

·         This was a very serious matter but punishment had occurred and substantial costs awarded; and

·         He had spoken to the new DPS and premises licence holder who was embarrassed by the incident but had agreed to fully comply with the conditions which would be monitored.


In response to questions from Members, Mr Gardener confirmed:


  • He believed that some minor amendments to the conditions might be needed as he wanted to prevent the establishment from being able to supply strong alcohol to street drinkers.  However, he felt that all issues raised had been addressed in the proposed conditions that would enable it to become a compliant responsible business; and
  • As a small business he considered the training to be adequate.


No representative from Lambeth and Southwark Public Health attended the hearing.


Presentation by the Premises Licence Holder


Ms Debra Silvester, Agent and Ms Rabia Pervez were in attendance.


Ms Debra Silvester, informed the Sub-Committee that:


  • She had been approached and contacted by Lambeth Police regarding the management of the premises;
  • On visiting the premises, she had spoken to Ms Faiza Pervaiz who advised her that she now wanted Ms Rabia Pervez to manage the premises.  Hence her reason for submitting an application to the licensing authority to transfer the premises licence;
  • Previously, her partner Mr Mohammed Pasha had been selling alcohol but not checking ID.  Also counterfeit alcohol had been found next door to the premises;
  • When Ms Faiza Pervaiz became the DPS and premises licence holder on 24 February 2015 she ensured that a Challenge 25 was in place and that single cans of beers/ciders over 500ml were not sold.  However, despite this, the incidents giving rise to the review had occurred at the shop.  Her partner had been advised not to work in the shop, which led to the decision being taken by Ms Faiza Pervaiz to transfer the licence to Ms Rabia Pervez in May 2015;
  • Since the incident Ms Faiza Pervaiz had not worked at the shop;
  • Several visits had been made to the shop and she believed that the responsible authorities were satisfied with Ms Pervez’s management of the premises;
  • She would be willing to add Ms Faiza Pervaiz’s name to condition 1;
  • Ms Rabia Pervez was fully aware of the previous issues associated with premises and she now had a refusals register in place; and
  • She urged the Sub-Committee that Ms Rabia Pervez should be given an opportunity to manage the shop despite the incidents associated with the premises.


In response to questions from Members, Ms Silvester informed the Sub-Committee that:


  • Condition 7 will ensure that the premises licence would need to examine what products and whom they will be purchasing from;
  • No miniature bottles of spirits would be sold at the premises.  The Chair then asked Mr Bradbury to draft a clause in relation to miniatures for the conditions. 


The legal adviser to the Sub-Committee confirmed that receipts and records should be kept on the premises and the conditions would be amended to reflect that.  He asked if the premises licence holder had any objections for records being kept on the premises for inspection for 12 months.  Following further discussion, The Chair clarified that only copies of receipts were required to be kept as a record so that any representative authorities could have access to that information if requested.   Ms Silvester confirmed that the request made would be acceptable to Ms Rabia Pervez;


In response to the above request to draft a clause Mr Bradbury confirmed that condition 2a should read “no miniatures or spirits to be stocked or sold”.


The Chair explained that a set of conditions would be circulated following the date of the meeting for these to be reviewed.


In response to questions from Members, Ms Rabia Pervez informed the Sub-Committee that:


  • She had been working in similar licensed establishments for three years but had not been the DPS.  Hardy’s Wine was the first premises she would be managing;
  • A challenge 25 was currently in operation with posters clearly displayed in the shop to alert clients;
  • Clients would be asked to produce IDs if they looked under 25 years old.  Ms Silvester confirmed that the refusals book that Ms Rabia Pervez used at the premises was available if Members wished to see it;
  • She was at the premises from 2-11pm.  Another member of staff also worked at the shop on a shift pattern;
  • Training for staff included ensuring ID such as driving licence or passport must be produced if they looked under 25.   She had booked a training course to acquire up-to-date information.  Also, she spent time on the internet to obtain new information to share with staff;
  • Her husband assisted her in the shop if required. 
  • She would be willing to provide training to any new staff members if appropriate which would entail providing them with a book to read.  However, no new staff members existed.  Ms Silvester confirmed that Ms Rabia Pervez had been supplied been ‘test’ papers to ensure that her staff understood the training provided;
  • Ms Faiza Pervaiz was her cousin but she was no longer involved in the business and felt confident that she would be able to uphold conditions 1 and 2.


In response to the legal adviser’s question regarding training, Mr Bradbury and Mr Gardener confirmed that refresher for staff every six months would be suitable.


Adjournment and Decision


At 8.07 pm, the Sub-Committee withdrew from the meeting together with the legal advisor and clerk to deliberate in private.


The Sub-Committee had heard and considered representations from Mr Bradbury, Mr Gardner, Ms Silvester and Ms Pervez.


Legal advice was given to the Sub-Committee on the options open to them and the need for any decision to be proportionate. The Sub-Committee decided to grant the review for Hardy’s Wine and impose further conditions.


RESOLVED: To grant the review for Hardy’s Wine subject to further conditions.


Announcement of Decision


Members returned to the meeting and the Chair informed those present of the decision to grant the review for Hardy’s Wine and impose further conditions.  Full reasons would be provided in due course.



Supporting documents: