BOROUGH OF POOLE

LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE

11 MAY 2009

THE DRAWING ROOM, UPTON HOUSE, UPTON COUNTRY PARK

The Meeting commenced at 5.30pm and concluded at 20.17pm

Members Present:

Councillors Mrs. Evans, Rampton and Maiden

Officers Present:

Frank Wenzel, Principal Licensing Officer, Environmental and

Consumer Protection Services (ECPS),

Cassie Scholfield, Licensing Officer, ECPS,

Mike Webber, Regulatory Services Manager, Weights and Measures Authority, ECPS,

Emma Scotson, Weights and Measures Authority, ECPS,

Simon Terry, Legal Adviser, Legal and Democratic Services, and

Kate Gibbings, Democratic Support Officer, Legal and Democratic Services.

Members of Press and Public Present: 0

LSC74.09 ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN

RESOLVED that Councillor Rampton be Chairman for this Meeting.

LSC75.09 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

None

LSC76.09 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

None

LSC77.09 CALIFORNIA FRIED CHICKEN, 238 ASHLEY ROAD, POOLE

The Chairman outlined the Rules and Procedure for dealing with the Review Application from the Borough of Poole (BoP), as the Weights and Measures Responsible Authority, in respect of the premises known as California Fried Chicken, 238, Ashley Road, and Poole. Introductions were made and the Sub-Committee was advised of the order of those intending to speak.

Those identified to speak were as follows: Frank Wenzel, Principal Licensing Officer, Environmental and Consumer Protection Services (ECPS), Mike Webber and Emma Scotson, Weights and Measures Authority, ECPS, Mr. Dick Hudson, representing California Fried Chicken, Mrs. J. Majidi (California Fried Chicken, Mr. Dariush Majidi, Premises Licence Holder (California Fried Chicken) and Mr. Abdullah Ebrahim, Owner and Designated Premises Supervisor (California Fried Chicken).

The Principal Licensing Officer, ECPS, read the Head of Environmental and Consumer Protection Services Report, outlining the grounds for the Review, which was related to the Licensing Objective ‘The Protection of Children from Harm’. The grounds for the Review were as follows:

·  There were three California Fried Chicken premises within the Borough of Poole. Two alcohol test purchase operations were conducted at California Fried Chicken on 26 October 2007 and 21 August 2008 testing the sale of alcohol by delivery. Two sales of alcohol were made to volunteers under the age of 18. It was unclear which premises the alcohol was delivered from, as the orders were dealt with by a central office, situated above California Fried Chicken at 614 Ringwood Road.

·  The Weights and Measures authority were of the opinion that the Premise was unable to fulfil the Licensing Objective of protecting children from harm.

The Premises benefited from a Premises Licence, which authorizes the supply of alcohol and late night refreshment. New York Chicken and Pizza Ltd. were the holders of the Premises Licence and the Designated Premises Supervisor was Mr. Abdullah Ebrahim.

In response to a Member’s question Mr. Hudson advised the Sub-Committee that New York Chicken and Pizza Ltd. and California Fried Chicken were the same business.

The Regulatory Services Manager, Weights and Measures Authority, ECPS, advised the Licensing Sub-Committee that on 21, August 2008 a delivery of alcohol had been made to a 14 years old female volunteer and a 16 years old male volunteer, along with take-away food. The order had been made by telephone via the California Fried Chicken’s Central Call Centre, which at the time of the order included the Premises at 614, Ringwood Road, 343, Wallisdown Road and 238, Ashley Road. The volunteer was asked to provide their date of birth and the form of identification available to verify proof of age. Having given a date of birth, as being 18 years of age the volunteers were not questioned as to their age and identification was not requested at the time of delivery.

On 28 February 2008 a licence application was received due to previous test purchase failures related to the Call Centre in October 2007, negotiations were made with the Premises Licence Holder and was encouraged to request a variation of the Conditions of the Licence, to include extra conditions, relating to staff training and record keeping procedures. Representations that, a personal licence holder make all sales of alcohol were re-negotiated at the request of the Premises Licence Holder, as deemed impractical. The Licence Holder was also encouraged to include these additional conditions to the Licences of all the Poole Premises. The Licensee however did not take up this opportunity.

On 7 October 2008 Mr. Ebrahim, the owner of California Fried Chicken and Designated Premises Supervisor for the Ashley Road and Wallisdown Road Premises, was interviewed and claimed as the Managing Director of California Fast Food UK Limited, he was responsible for the entire California Fried Chicken Business, however had employed a manager for each premises. The delivery note, which related to the underage Sale, had been ticked by the driver indicating that the customer appeared over 21 years old, despite the recorded date of birth on the order document, which had indicated that the customer was 18 years old. This mistake should have been picked up by management, as part of the Company’s Due Diligence Checks, but again this had been missed.

As the Call Centre dealt with all the premises it was not clear which premises the delivery originated from, as no documented audit trail was available. It was noted that orders were prepared and dispatched according to the geographical distance from destination and demand on the Premises. Mr. Ebrahim however claimed that the Delivery originated from the Ashley Road Premise.

The member of staff who was responsible for the Delivery had signed, indicating that he had received training on 21 February 2008. The sale was made just over 6 months later and it was noted that staff retraining every 6 months was a condition of the Licence at Ashley Road Premise.

Mr. Webber advised the Sub-Committee that a responsible person should be used to monitor remote sales i.e. a Personal License Holder, with knowledge of policies and procedures. He also stated that a documented system needed to be in place and confirmed that a Personal License Holder could be anyone who was suitably trained and qualified.

The Weights and Measures Authority’s main concern was the Management, its Policies and the Procedures at the Premise. A responsible person was needed to oversee all delivery orders. Under the circumstances it felt the Premise had not fulfilled the Licensing Objective, ‘to protect children from harm’. A number of policies and procedures were provided within page 8 of the Application that the Weights and Measures Authority wants to see operated in all well-run retailer businesses, where restricted age products are sold.

In response to Members’ questions Mr. Webber advised the Sub-Committee that whilst sales of alcohol must be made to those of 18 years old plus, the Premises Licence Conditions included delivery drivers complying with the Challenge 21 Scheme, in that identification should be requested from any persons appearing to be under the age of 21 years old. He also clarified that the volunteers used looked their age and not 18 years old plus.

Mr. Hudson advised the Sub-Committee that there had been one case of an under aged sale on 21 August 2008 at the Premise. Following this mistake the Company had been working closely with the Environmental and Consumer Protection Services (ECPS) to ensure stronger polices and procedures could be implemented to eliminate future errors. He thanked the Officers concerned for their support in resolving the issues.

He outlined the nature of the Businesses Operation, stating that the business had not operated to the full extent of the Premises Licence’s Operating Hours. Alcohol had only been made available for purchase at the Premises counter and its take-away service. There was no self-service option available for the sale of alcohol. Internet and telephone orders were made via the Central Call Centre, which was situated above the Ringwood Road Premise. Orders were then given to the nearest premises to the delivery address or to the premises with the least orders, for preparation and dispatch.

Mr. Hudson advised the Sub-Committee that Mr. Majidi and Mr. Ebrahim were upset about the Application for Review as many of the problems experienced had been rectified and work had been carried out to improve the operation of the Premise and to meet the Licensing Objective ‘Prevention of Children from Harm’. He then referred to the recommended policies and procedures and delivery of alcohol listed on page 8 of the Application for Review and stated that the majority had already been implemented in the three California Fried Chicken Premises within Poole and on deliveries. These were as follows:

1.  The Premise operated a ‘Challenge 21 Policy’ and a clear explanation of the acceptable proof of age identification was on display next to the till.

2.  Refresher training took place every six months by way of the SWERCOTS CD ROM, which was available for staff to view at any time. Training records were also kept and maintained.

3.  A refusals register had been kept on the computer and checked on a weekly basis by management.

4.  Notices were displayed at the entrance to all three Premises; to ensure all customers entering the Premises could see the Company’s ‘Underage Sales Policy’.

5.  A computerised till system had been installed, which monitored remote CCTVs within the Premises, prompted staff for identification on alcohol sales and prevented sales taking place without identification. Staff in the Call Centre also monitored Internet sales and delivery slips were now monitored each day by the branch manager, who would then forward them on to Head Office.

In addition staff signed on a daily basis that they understood the Company’s Underage Sales Policy and handouts of the Computer System Prompts were provided as a daily reminder to all members of staff.

The Computerised System prompted identification checks such as the requirement for call centre staff to input date of birth and the proof of age available when undertaking telephone sales, before a sale could be made. Internet sales required the person to enter their date of birth before the sale could be made. In both cases the delivery note indicated the date of birth given and the type of identification available as proof of age. The delivery driver was responsible for indicating on the delivery note, in the form of a tick that proof of age had been achieved.

With regard to the Condition relating to the ‘Delivery of Alcohol’ (listed on page 8 of the Application for Review), Mr. Hudson explained that the consideration of remote age restricted sales being monitored and authorized by the Personal Licence Holders he felt were not necessary. These actions had adequately been undertaken by the Premises Managers or Premises Supervisors, and asked that the Sub-Committee accept a computerised refusals register.

He advised the Sub-Committee that he wished to submit additional evidence on behalf of California Fried Chicken, in the form of screen-prints of the California Fried Chicken Webpage ‘prompt for identification’ and a ‘pop-up’ to remind drivers that the order contained alcohol, in order to show that no identification meant no sale.

The Legal Adviser stated that this additional evidence could be circulated to the Sub-Committee providing that all interested parties consented, which they did.

Mr. Hudson advised the Sub-Committee that as part of the Review Process the required notification had been advertised correctly and whilst one letter of representation was received from a member of the public, in relation to Crime and Disorder, the Police had made no representation regarding Crime and Disorder or Anti Social Behaviour. He queried the validity of the Letter, stating that California Fried Chicken did care about the prevention of under age sales and that the take away operation had operated within the area for many years. The Premise had only had to call the Police once to assist in incidents, which had not occurred on the Premises. The Premise could not be held responsible for the behaviour of those causing disturbance and nuisance off the Premises.

In response to a Member’s concern over the alleged Anti-Social Behaviour, Mr. Hudson advised the Sub-Committee that the Premise had notify the Police where issues for concern had been raised and had not served alcohol to those who had appeared over the limit.

In response to a Member’s question relating to the Computerised System, Mr. Majidi advised the Sub-Committee that the System had been upgraded and logged which Premises orders originated from and highlighted age and form of identification provided at time of order. Prompts were activated whenever age restricted sales were undertaken, regardless of the age entered on the system. In respect of the register of refusals, he confirmed that the System held 6 months plus of such records.

In response to a Member’s question in relation the checks carried out by the delivery drivers, Mr. Hudson advised the Sub-Committee that the delivery drivers were responsible for signing the delivery slips, indicating proof of age. Following the issues raised by the Review the Delivery Slips were still to be enhanced, as were the monitoring checks on staff.

A Member enquired if ECPS had recently reviewed the Computerised System?

Mr. Webber advised the Sub-Committee that on 5 May 2009 telephone and website sales were monitored. The prompts and delivery slips were witnessed. With the agreement of all parties a copy of the 21 August 2008 Delivery Slip was circulated, which showed the date of sale and a tick in the over 21 years old box.