Agenda item

Hearing to determine an application for the review of a premises licence – Todays Express, 50 Kesteven Road, Stamford, Lincolnshire PE9 1SU, Licensing Officer’s report ENV918.

Decision

 

To revoke the Premise Licence for the premises known as Todays Express, 50 Kesteven Road, Stamford PE91SU.

 

The Vice-Chairman introduced those present and confirmed who was to speak in connection with the Review before the Committee.

 

Lincolnshire Police representative was Sergeant Amy Adams also present from Lincolnshire Police were PC Kat Braithwaite and PC Rebeka Casey.

 

Home Office Immigration representative was Stacey Donnelly also present from Home Office Immigration was Rebecca Fortune.

 

Premises Licence Representative was Duncan Craig Barrister also present was the Premise Licence Holder (PLH) Arumugam Kalamohan, Ian Rushton, JL Licensing and Jon Jones, RJJ Consultancy and Rosil Stanislous interpreter.

 

The Licensing Officer presented the report which concerned a review of the premise licence for Todays Express, Stamford which had been received from Lincolnshire Police in August 2025.  The application for the review related to the licensing objective of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder.  The Police advised that they had obtained evidence which indicated that the management of the premises were operating in such a manner that amounts to criminal activity and thus undermines the licensing objective.  Activity included:

 

-        Evidence of illegal workers on the premises

-        Breach of the annex 2 and annex 3 premises licence conditions relating to staff operation of the CCTV, out of date DPS Authority list, lack of required signage, right to work documentation, staff training logs and incident and refusal recordings.  Offences under the Price Marking Order Act 2004

-        The sale and display of equipment within the shop that could be used to prepare and smoke illegal drugs.

 

During the consultation period a representation was received from the Home Office in September 2025 supporting the Police’s application that the PLH was not taking suitable measures to prevent crime and disorder.  Their representation included evidence of a visit made in October 2023 whereby an individual was located on the premises who subsequently had no right to work in the UK. No other comments from members of the public or other responsible authorities were made.

 

The current Premise Licence permitted the sale of alcohol off the premises from 06:00 to 00:00 Monday to Sunday, with the same hours for opening.   The Premise Licence was granted in November 2013 to Arumugam Kalamohan who was the Premises Licence Holder (PLH) but not the named Designated Premise Supervisor (DPS).

In July 2023 an application was submitted for Arumugan Kalamohan to be the named DPS on the licence which was still current.

 

The Licensing Officer then referred to the previous history of enforcement action that had taken place at the premise.

 

-        In May 2020 Lincolnshire Police submitted a review of the Premise Licence.  Arumugam Kalamohan was both the Premises Licence Holder and the DPS at the time of the review.  The decision notice and minutes were contained within Appendix 1 of the documents supplied by the Police as part of their representation.  The review centred around evidence obtained that there was an illegal worker found at the premises and that there had been non-compliance in regard to the Annex 2 premises Licence conditions relating to the operation of the CCTV and insufficient or missing paperwork to do with staff training and a refusal/incident log.

 

The Committee had determined to modify the Premise Licence conditions at the Review which included adding conditions relating to the training and refresher training of staff on age restricted product sales and refusals, carrying out the necessary checks for employees right to work in the UK and the retention of such documentation and training logs.  These conditions were part of Annex 3 of the current Premises Licence.

 

The Committee were reminded that each application should be determined on its own merits and the Committee should take such steps as they consider appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives as outlined in Licensing Act 2003 at section 167(6).

 

The Committee may;

 

-        Modify the conditions of the licence

-        Exclude a licensable activity from the licence (although as the licence only permits one licensable activity excluding this would render it void);

-        Remove the designated premises supervisor;

-        Suspend the licence for a period not exceeding 3 months; or

-        Revoke the licence.

 

There were no questions for the Licensing Officer from those parties present.

 

Sergeant Adams from Lincolnshire Police then made their representation.  The Review had been requested on the grounds that the Police had evidence that indicated that the management of the premises were operating in such a manner that amounted to criminal activity and was undermining the licensing objective of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder as well as clear evidence of non-compliance with the conditions as set out in the Premise licence.

 

Mr Kalamohan had been the PLH since 2013. The Premise had previously been reviewed in 2020.  The review had been initiated by Lincolnshire Police following a visit made by the Police and Immigration Officers in March 2020.  During the visit an illegal working was encountered.  In addition to this two persons were located in the staff accommodation area with no right to work who were believed to be workers at the premises together with various non-compliant issues in respect of the premise licence.  The Committee’s decision at the time was to modify the licence to include more stringent conditions relating to staff training and refresher training, checks and recording of employees right to work (Appendix B within Appendix 1 to the report contained details of the decision and minutes of the meeting).

 

It was noted that the £10,000 penalty issued in relation to the illegal working discovered in 2020 remained outstanding and had been referred to a third party debt collection agency.  Although this penalty was not issued to Mr Kalamohan personally, the business at the time was under his control.

 

The premises under review had been visited by the Police on three separate occasions over the last two years and consistent issues had been encountered during every visit.  Mr Kalamohan had held the position of DPS during this period.

 

Sergeant Adams then highlighted issues that had been encountered. 

 

In October 2023 during a visit accompanied by Immigration Officers an illegal worker was encountered together with non-compliance of conditions including CCTV, DPS authority, right to work documentation and staff training.  Immigration officers referred the case to the Home Office Civil Penalty Compliance Team for a civil penalty to be issued, however no further action was taken.  It was confirmed at the time that the worker encountered was working without the correct right to work entitlement which did amount to a crime.  Appendices F and G of Appendix 1 contained statements and images taken at the time.

 

In November 2024 a Police inspection was carried out and various non-compliance of conditions of the Premise licence were found.  These related to CCTV, DPS authority, incident and refusals recording, signage, right to work documentation and staff training.  Members were referred to Appendix H of Appendix 1.  An email was forwarded to Mr Kalamohan asking that urgent action was taken to address the issues found by the Police, no acknowledgment about the concerns raised was received by the Police.  Members were referred to Appendix I for details of the email and the breach of conditions found.

 

A further Police inspection was carried out in June 2025 were once again non-compliance with conditions relating to CCTV, DPS authority, incident and refusals recording, location of spirits, shop signage, right to work documentation and staff training were discovered. Concern were also raised in respect of the sale of equipment used to prepare and smoke illegal drugs, along with the sale of “Poppers” a product commonly used as a recreation drug.  Members were referred to Appendices J & K of Appendix 1 for detailed statements and images taken.   

It was noted that during visits carried out in 2023 and 2025 quantities of non-priced alcohol were witnessed which was an offence under the Price Marking Order Act 2004 and images were appended to the report showing this.

 

The Police then spoke about the employment of illegal workers and stated that an employer by law must carry out various checks to ensure that their staff were legally allowed to work.

 

Sergeant Adams then made reference to the non-compliance that had been found at the premise and the lack of compliance in respect of training records incomplete right to work checks amongst other issues such as lack of signage and non-compliance with Annex 3 conditions on the Premise Licence which were offences under Section 125 of the Licensing Act 2003 which had been added at the Review which had taken place in 2020.  It was stated that the Licensing Objectives were not being upheld and were being continually breached.  Sergeant Adams then spoke of the lack of price marking as required by the Price Marking Order Act 2004 which had been found on visits to the premise.

 

Reference was made to other premises owned by Mr Kalamohan located in Grantham and Caistor at which illegal workers had been found present and where Premise licences had been revoked.   

 

The Police felt that the PLH appeared to have a total disregard in respect of what was expected of him and his employees and the promotion of the licensing objectives which the Police felt that Mr Kalamohan was continually undermining which was a major concern for the Police who felt that this was not due to lack of understanding and asked the Committee to consider revocation of the Premises Licence.   Reference was made to the Revised Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 particularly sections: 11.23, 11.24, 11.25. 11.26, 11.27 and 11.28.

 

Sergeant Adams then spoke in respect of the Independent Audit that had been carried out on the same day that the Police had visited (07.11.25) by RJJ Consultancy, querying who had been present at the time of the audit, that records were still incomplete, right to work checks could not be accessed and refresher training logs had not been completed since September 2024.  Concern was also expressed in respect of some of the material for sale which although not illegal it was felt did not promote the licensing of objectives.

 

The Police felt that Annex 2 conditions were being breached in respect to the sale and location of the some of the alcohol situated in the shop.  The Police had found that following their visit the premises was only partially compliant and there were continued issues with the premise which the Police felt were not “minor clerical issues”.  Issues at the premises had been going on over a long period of time, the licensing objectives were not being promoted by the Mr Kalamohan and the licensing objectives of the Prevention of Crime and Disorder were being undermined.  The management of the premises was not sufficient and the Police requested the Committee to seriously consider revocation of the Premise Licence.

During questions to the Police the PLH Representative, Duncan Craig asked questions in respect of the civil penalty fine which was not served on Mr Kalamohan, also the visits that had been undertaken at the premises and the people present together with conditions imposed in 2020.

 

The Immigration Officer, Stacey Donnelly, made her representation to the Committee, referencing the illegal worker discovered at the premises in October 2023. During her presentation, reference was made to the worker who claimed they were not employed at the premises but had helped with stacking shelves and watched over the shop while the staff took breaks even though they were the only person present at the time of the visit. The illegal worker had identified Mr Kalamohan as “the boss” and that he provided food and accommodation for the worker. It was important to note that the person was not allowed to work in the UK and reference was made to the use of illegal workers who were often paid below minimum wage, did not pay NI and did not have the rights that legal employees had. It was felt that revocation of the Premises Licence would be a proportionate measure.

 

During questions Duncan Craig made reference to the high thresholds that were in place in respect of any prosecution in respect of illegal workers and that there had not been enough evidence for a prosecution to take place by the Civil Penalty Team.  It was confirmed that no further action took place.

 

Duncan Craig on behalf of the Premises Licence Holder made their representation. Reference was made to the overarching principals in respect of the Licensing Act 2003 and South Kesteven District Council’s Licensing Policy together with the 182 Guidance issued. Each case should be looked at on its own merits. Mr Kalamohan had held a licence over a 12 year period.

 

Mr Craig then referred to the visits that had been undertaken and that following the visit in October 2023 no further action had been taken by Immigration enforcement and therefore limited weight should be attached to this.   He then spoke about the visit in November 24 and the visit in June 25 and the number of alleged breaches found. He questioned whether the spirits that had been referred to within the papers were “proper” spirits. He also made reference to Section 136 and offences under this section in respect of licensable activity that the Police had raised and felt that he couldn’t  see that a criminal offence had taken place and stated that it wasn’t legally correct.  There did not have to be a conviction for crime and disorder to be engaged. 

 

It was stated that the comprehensive report undertaken had demonstrated an improved position at the premises and the audit that had taken place stated that the premise was overall compliant. The Police had acknowledged an improved position but that the premise was not fully compliant. Mr Craig then highlighted paragraphs within the audit document and the overall conclusion that there was a commendable commitment to adhering to conditions with up coming training scheduled to be undertaken. It was felt that the breaches highlighted by the  Police were minor breaches and that any decision had to be appropriate and proportionate and revocation was not appropriate or proportionate.

During questions it was stated that the sprits that had been referenced were still alcohol. The Police made reference to Section 136 offences and that the Police had to undertake due diligence in respect  of the Licensing Act 2003. The inability of the person present to show right to work checks on request which was a condition to be provided on request when the police visited in November 2024. How many staff were actually present during the time of the audit; records were not up to date when the Police had visited.

 

Discussion followed in respect of how many days the PLH was in the premise and where he resided and the hours that he worked in the premise. The sale of certain products in the premise were not illegal and nothing suggested that they contributed to any drug incidents at the premise. Clarification was sought in respect of the position of the women present at the Police’s visit, was she a manager, it was confirmed that no she was not a manager and she did not have permission to access right to work papers on the computer. Was the audit visit known about by the PLH. It was stated that the audit visit was known but the Police visits were unannounced. The PLH was asked to recite one of the Licensing Objectives which he confirmed.

 

The Licensing Officer then gave her closing statement. Each application should be determined on its own merits. The Committee must take such steps as they considered appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives as outlined in the Licensing Act 2003 at Section 167(6). Options available to the Committee were:

 

-        To modify the conditions of the licence

-        Exclude a licensable activity from the licence (although as the licence only permits one licensable activity excluding this would render it void);

-        Remove the Designated Premises Supervisor

-        Suspend the licence for a period not exceeding three months; or

-        Revoke the licence.

 

Members should take note of the guidance issued under Section 182 (Paragraph 11.20) of the Act that:

 

“In deciding which of these powers to invoke, it is expected that licensing authorities should, as far a possible, seek to establish the cause or causes of the concerns which the representations identify. The remedial action taken should generally be directed as these causes and should always be no more than an appropriate and proportionate response.”

 

The Police then gave their closing statement, making reference to changes to the DPS at other premises owned by Mr Kalamohan and the on going issues at premises which were not fully compliant. Information not being available for the Police as required by the condition of the licence and although work had been done to address some of the concerns the Police felt that it was too little too late. Mr Kalamohan was an experienced Premise Licence Holder and DPS and changes should have made as soon as they had been pointed out.  The Police felt that further conditions would not mitigate the risks and neither would changing the DPS relevant sections of 182 guidance were highlighted.  The Police had no confidence that the Licensing Objectives would be upheld and not undermined and they asked that revocation of the Premise licence be considered by the Committee.

 

A brief closing statement was made by the Immigration Officer in respect of the no action notice, high civil penalty threshold and the visit that was undertaken and spot checks carried out.

 

Duncan Craig then made his closing statement on behalf of Mr Kalamohan. He did not agree with the high threshold and made reference to the visits that had been carried out, the availability of employment records and right to work checks, breaches to the licensing conditions and that the premises was now partially compliant and that revocation of the premise licence was an extreme decision which was not appropriate or proportionate in the circumstances.

 

(12:35 the licensing officers and all other parties left the meeting)

 

Members discussed the review before them having regard to all relevant guidance and Policy documents and the representations that had been made. Concern was expressed about the continued breaches to the premise licence and the illegal workers found on the premise which appeared to be a continued theme with the owner of the premise. As conditions had been placed on the licence back in 2020 it was felt that further conditions would not address the issues and modifying the licence or removing the DPS would again not address the issues at the premise. Suspending the licence was not deemed appropriate and after further discussion it was proposed, seconded and unanimously agreed that the premise licence should be revoked.

 

(1:05 the licensing officer and all parties returned to the meeting)

 

The Legal Advisor read out the Committee’s decision. The Committee had read all the paperwork before them and had heard from the Licensing Officer, Lincolnshire Police, Immigration and the Premises licence holders  representative.

 

Lincolnshire Police presented their application as set out in their evidence pack. They expressed concerns regarding the non-compliance of conditions and illegal workers found at the premises, advising of recent visits and non-compliances found. They also noted the history of this premises in relation to previous non-compliances and illegal workers which included a hearing in 2020 where additional conditions were placed on the licence. The police referred to other premises controlled by the licence holder where there have been non-compliances found.

 

Immigration advised about the visit on 3^rd October 2023 when a person not entitled to work was found on the premises. The details of the visit are set out in the evidence they submitted. No further action was taken in relation to this matter.

 

The Premises Licence holder’s representative set out the evidence in their report noting the most recent independent compliance check which showed an improvement. The representative advised that there had been three visits of the Police noting that the independent check and one of the Police visits was on the same day. The representative noted that there had been no further action in respect of the person found at the premises and there was no evidence of a criminal offence under s136.

 

The Committee considered all options available to them. They considered whether there were any conditions that could be included which would address concerns and were of the view that there were not, noting that conditions had previously been imposed following a hearing in 2020. They considered removing a licensable activity from the licence but noted that as the licence was only for the sale of alcohol to remove a licensable activity would be the same as revoking the application.

 

They considered removing the DPS but did not consider with the history of this premises that this would address their concerns.

 

The Committee considered a suspension of the licence but did not consider given the history of the premises it was appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objective of prevention of crime and disorder.

 

Whilst the Committee have noted there have been some improvements the Committee note that failures to comply with conditions have been ongoing for some time and having considered all other options available have decided that it is  appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objective of crime and disorder to revoke the licence. 

 

There was a right of appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of the licence decision being received.

 

An adjournment took place between 1:10 and 1:50.