Meeting documents

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interests.

The Chairman introduced the parties and explained the procedure to be followed. The Hearing Regulations 2005 stated that the Authority must allow parties an equal period of time in which to present their evidence. It was agreed that the maximum time for each presentation be 15 minutes.

The Licensing Enforcement Officer presented the report to Members.

There were no questions for the Licensing Enforcement Officer.

Ms K Retallic, Restricted Sales Officer from Leicestershire County Council Trading Standards Service, addressed the Committee. She outlined to the Committee the two occasions on which under age sales had been made, previous history relating to Mr Kareer, husband of the Premises Licence Holder, and the advice visits and training that had been given by the County Officers. She requested revocation of the licence, however she informed the Committee, that should they see no need to revoke the licence, to consider imposing the conditions specified in the application for review on the licence.

There were no questions for the Responsible Authority.

Through her daughter, Mrs Devi, Premises Licence Holder, addressed the Committee. She explained to Members that her husband had realised that he had made a mistake and that he was now fully trained. She explained to the Committee that her husband did not feel competent at completing the refusal log and had asked her to help him, but she had advised him to be responsible for all his sales. She informed the Committee that all the staff were now trained and that, even customers who looked over the age of Twenty One were asked for ID.

Following questions from Members, Mrs Devi advised the Committee that:

Mrs Devi covers the selling of items and Mr Kareer shelf stacks.

That on the occasion of the test purchase Mr Kareer felt that the purchaser was older than twenty one and he had now been advised to ask for ID no matter how old they looked.

That they did not live above the shop, they worked from 2pm in the afternoon through to closing time at 10am and that the other employee covered the morning hours.

Mrs Devi would provide cover for the other employee during their leave.

In a response to a question from the Members, Karen Retallic advised the Committee that the test purchasers are asked to work to a code of practice and should be representative of the age that they are. All test purchasers have a maximum age of 16½ years and on the last occasion the test purchaser was 15 yrs old. She also advised members that the training pack contained example pictures of how test purchasers could look older than they are and that she felt that the training was not understood.

There was no closing statement from the Responsible Authority.

The Legal Advisor advised all parties that the committee may be minded to either suspend or revoke the License for sale of alcohol. This would have no effect on any other age restricted sales. He also informed the Premises Licence Holder that if the Committee were to suspend the Licence this would be for a set time period and if the Committee where to revoke the Licence, then they would not be able to sell alcohol until a new application had been made and permitted.

Mrs Devi explained to the Committee that the mistake had been made by Mr Kareer and that she would ensure that no further mistakes would be made. They would always check ID and that she would spend more time in the shop than her husband.

At 5.10pm the Sub Committee adjourned to consider its decision and re-convened at 5.21pm to ask further questions of clarity.

Following questions for Members, Mrs Devi advised the Committee that she had owned the shop in Coalville for one and half years and that her husband had owned the shop in Loughborough six months previously. She informed the Committee that her husband was not in attendance as the letter was just addressed to her and she did not realise that he could attend.

At 5.25pm the Sub Committee adjourned consider its decision following the responses received to the further questions asked and re-convened at 5.40pm.

At the request of the Chairman of the Committee, the Legal Advisor informed the applicant of the Committee's decision.