Agenda item

App

No

Ward /

Cumulative Impact Area

Site Name and Address

Application

Licensing Reference Number

2.

Knightsbridge and Belgravia Ward /

not in a cumulative impact area

Noura Brassiere, 11-12 William Street, London, SW1X 9HL

Review

18/13511/

LIREVP

Noura Brasserie, 11-12 William Street, London SW1X 9HL

18/13511/LIREVP (“The Premises”)

An application had been submitted by the Home Office (Immigration Enforcement), for a review of the premises licence for Noura Brasserie, 11-12 William Street, London SW1X 9HL (the Premises) on the grounds of prevention of crime and disorder.

Officers from Immigration Enforcement had conducted a visit to the Premises on 10 June 2018, and had arrested five subjects with no right to work in the UK. In light of the five subjects found working illegally, Home Office Immigration Enforcement wished to seek revocation of the premises licence.  

Decision:

Mr Brian Anderson and Ms Latifa Grant addressed the Committee on behalf of the Home Office (“The Applicant”), and confirmed that they were familiar with the case and could provide binding commitments and answers to questions.

Ms Grant confirmed to the Committee that following receipt of an allegation, the Home Office had visited the Premises and found that five of the employees were working in the UK illegally. The Committee noted that visitors could be granted a visa that enabled them to work in the UK for six months. If the visitor continued to work without applying to extend their visa they could no longer work legally , and would be shown on the Home Office records as having overstayed. Ms Grant informed the Committee that it was part of the employer’s responsibilities to carry out checks to ensure that their employees had the right to work legally in the UK, and to review those checks and procedures as and when required and where appropriate obtain evidence of workers making an application to the Home Office to extend their visa. 

The Home Office confirmed to the Committee that proof of identity and eligibility to work could be provided by documentation that included passports, ID cards, National Insurance cards, bank accounts and job seekers paperwork. Although further checks could be carried out by the employer’s accountant to identify overstayers, the Home Office emphasised that confirmation of eligibility to work was the employer’s responsibility.

Ms Sadaf Ali addressed the Committee on behalf of the Licence Holder, who had evidence that all of the prescribed checks seeking proof of identity, eligibility to work and financial arrangements had been carried out prior to the workers being given contracts of employment. Ms Ali considered that there had been no wrong doing by the Applicant, as the checks had appeared correct, and the Licence Holder had been unaware that the documentation had been forgeries. The Licence Holder’s accountant had also been satisfied with the supporting paperwork, and had no reason to doubt that the employees were genuine as National Insurance payments and PAYE tax had also been paid on behalf of employees for several months without being challenged. Ms Ali informed the Committee that the Licence Holder had in the past tried unsuccessfully to contact the Home Office for advice.

Ms Ali also considered that there were discrepancies in the case brought by the Home Office, as the allegations had continued to relate to five subjects, and did not take into account successful statutory checks having reduced this number to three.

Ms Grant acknowledged that employers could have difficulty in identifying forged documents, but considered that the Licence Holder had been aware that the workers had limited time remaining on their visas, but had not taken appropriate follow-up action. Ms Grant suggested that there were ways in which the Licence Holder could improve existing procedures by introducing a system that flagged up when workers’ visas were about to expire. The Home Office stood by their request for revocation, on the basis that they considered that employee records were not to the best standard; and that checks commenced by the Licence Holder and accountant had not been completed. The Home Office also stated that they had no record of the Licence Holder having sought to make contact. 

The Committee sought clarification of the procedures that should be in place to ensure that employees had the right to work, and Ms Grant confirmed that passports and ID cards should be checked, copied and signed. If the employer had any doubts, they should contact the Home Office to check the legitimacy of workers before any training, trial period or contract commenced. It was submitted that Accountants should also be aware of the Home Office rules and procedures, and carefully check employee’s National Insurance or PAYE details. The Committee noted that employers were also able to refer to the Home Office website for advice and guidance to ensure best practice.

As a decision could only be made based on the evidence that was given, the Committee asked whether the Home Office had considered other remedies, measures or conditions as an alternative means to revocation.  Ms Grant commented that the Licence Holder had carried out more checks than were done at many other premises, and recognised the difficulty ordinary people could have in determining forgeries.  The Home Office acknowledged that in the given circumstances revocation could be excessive, and suggested that an alternative could be adding a condition to the premises licence to ensure that the Licence Holder worked more closely with the Home Office in future to ensure that people had the right to work.

The Legal Advisor to the Committee asked the Home Office whether there had been a lack of dialogue with the operator, and Mr Anderson acknowledged that communication could have been better between the parties and the Committee noted this.

The Committee recognised that asking for revocation of a licence was a major and severe step that had to be treated seriously, and that they had to consider whether the request was the right one, or whether there were alternative measures such as imposing conditions or adopting another sanction using its powers available to it under section 52 (4) of the Licensing Act 2003 The Committee acknowledged that the application had been a difficult case, as although the facts at one level were not in dispute, dealing with forged documents had raised a number of issues.

However, having listened carefully to the evidence presented by the various parties, the Committee decided that on balance it would not be appropriate in all of the circumstances of the case to revoke the premises licence. The Committee in determining the matter has to consider each case on its individual merits and was therefore persuaded by the licence holder that he acted diligently in carrying out the necessary employment checks and on this occasion felt that a warning was appropriate. The Committee also took comfort from the fact that the Home Office had stated in their evidence to the Committee that upon reflection they had now come to the conclusion that seeking revocation was a disproportionate measure to be taken and not appropriate. The Committee also decided on balance not to impose conditions on the licence, but agreed that the licence holder needed to understand the seriousness of the matter, and that the Committee would not hesitate to act if a similar situation were to occur in future. The law and the Home Office Guidance is very clear on the employer’s responsibilities, and in future the licence holder needed to be aware of the sophistication of forged documents and be even more stringent in its checks. The Committee strongly recommended that the licence holdershould take up the offer made by the Home Office to provide advice on best practice, to ensure that the business was not impeded by people who sought to work illegally. The Committee commented that after offences had been found, the Home Office needed to seek a dialogue between all parties and do more work before seeking revocation of a premises licence