Licensing Act 2003

Notice of Decision

PREMISES

Neyzen Restaurant

290 North Street

Romford

RM5 3AB

APPLICANT

Home Office

Immigration Department

Details of the application

The application to review a premises licence is made by the Home Office Immigration Department under section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003. The application was received by Havering’s Licensing Authority on 12th January 2026.

The Home Office Immigration Department is a responsible authority as defined in section 13 of the Licensing Act 2003, as amended by Schedule 4 of the Immigration Act 2016.  This responsible authority submitted this application to review a premises licence further to an immigration enforcement visit previously undertaken at the premises. The application and its attendant documentation detail the circumstances surrounding this enforcement visit and the matters discovered during the Immigration Enforcement Licensing Compliance Team’s attendance. As a consequence, the Immigration Department contends it has “grounds to believe the license holder has failed to meet the licensing objectives of prevention of crime and disorder, as illegal working has been identified at this premises.”

?

Summary

There were no representations in relation to this application from any other person or responsible authority.

Determination of application for a review of premises licence

1.            The Licensing Sub-Committee considered an application for a review of the premises licence for the premises situated at 290 North Street, Romford, RM5 3AB.

2.         The review application was submitted by the Home Office Immigration Department. The application was made following a visit by Home Office officers on the 1st of May 2025 where two individuals were found to be working at the premises in breach of their immigration terms.

3.         The Sub-Committee were cognisant that in deciding in which powers to invoke in the review process, the expectation of members is that it should so far as possible seek to establish the cause or causes of the concerns that the representations identify. Therefore, any remedial action taken should generally be directed at these causes and should always be no more than an appropriate and proportionate response to address the causes of concern that instigated the review.

4.         The Sub-Committee were cognisant of the powers available to them being taking no action, issue a warning, add, remove, or modify license conditions, suspend the licence or revoke the licence entirely.

5.         The Sub-Committee were cognisant of the secretary of state’s statutory guidance which states

a.         Where the licensing authority is conducting a review on the grounds that the premises have been used for criminal purposes, its role is solely to determine what steps should be taken in connection with the premises licence, for the promotion of the crime prevention objective. It is important to recognise that certain criminal activity or associated problems may be taking place or have taken place despite the best efforts of the licence holder and the staff working at the premises and despite full compliance with the conditions attached to the licence. In such circumstances, the licensing authority is still empowered to take any appropriate steps to remedy the problems. The licensing authority’s duty is to take steps with a view to the promotion of the licensing objectives and the prevention of illegal working in the interests of the wider community and not those of the individual licence holder.

b.         Where there is certain criminal activity that may arise in connection with licensed premises which should be treated particularly seriously. These are the use of the licensed premises:

i.          for the sale and distribution of drugs controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the laundering of the proceeds of drugs crime;

ii.         for the sale and distribution of illegal firearms;

iii.        for the evasion of copyright in respect of pirated or unlicensed films and music, which does considerable damage to the industries affected;

iv.        for the illegal purchase and consumption of alcohol by minors which impacts on the health, educational attainment, employment prospects and propensity for crime of young people;

v.         for prostitution or the sale of unlawful pornography;

vi.        by organised groups of paedophiles to groom children;

vii.       as the base for the organisation of criminal activity, particularly by gangs;

viii.      for the organisation of racist activity or the promotion of racist attacks;

ix.        for employing a person who is disqualified from that work by reason of their immigration status in the UK;

x.         for unlawful gambling; and

c.         It is envisaged that licensing authorities, the police, the Home Office (Immigration Enforcement) and other law enforcement agencies, which are responsible authorities, will use the review procedures effectively to deter such activities and crime. Where reviews arise and the licensing authority determines that the crime prevention objective is being undermined through the premises being used to further crimes, it is expected that revocation of the licence – even in the first instance – should be seriously considered.

6.         The Sub-Committee were further cognisant of the council’s statement of policy, in particular paragraph 13, which sets out the council’s expectations in regard to the standards of management by a licence holder.

Reasons:

7.         After having taken into consideration all written and oral submissions and considered the relevant sections of the Licensing Act 2003 and assisted by the Paragraphs stated above of the S182 Guidance, and the council’s statement of licensing policy, the sub-committee feel that the appropriate and proportionate remedial action is to revoke the premises licence for Neyzen Restaurant, 290 North Street, Romford, RM5 3AB

8.         The Sub-Committee heard from the Home Office representative who read out the letter of representation which detailed that a compliance visit revealed that two illegal workers were working at the premises who were employed by the licence holder as stated by the restaurant’s manager. The members were also told that the licence holder appealed the subsequent civil penalty notice at the First Tier Tribunal but that appeal was dismissed and the fines were upheld and moreover the fines are yet to be paid.

9.         The Sub-Committee also found on balance of probabilities that the shed at the back of the restaurant was indeed a living arrangement provided to one of the workers.

10.       Turning to the licence holder, the Sub-Committee were told that he was not running the business due to health issues. The members also read the licence holder’s supporting documents which stated that ‘I have never been involved in the operation or employment decisions of the restaurant. My role in relation to this and other properties I hold is limited to leasehold and management of leases and do not manage tenant recruitment or day-to-day staffing’.

11.       The Sub-Committee found these representations very worrying, the licence holder by his own admission had distanced himself from the operation of the licence. The Sub-Committee followed up to ask the licence holder what the four licensing objectives are and he was unable to provide a satisfactory response which further demonstrated that the licence holder was not operating the licence or at the very least is not a competent licence holder.

Right of Appeal

Any party who has made a relevant representation may appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of notification of the decision.

On appeal, the Magistrates’ Court may:

1.         Dismiss the appeal; or

2.         Substitute the decision for another decision which could have been made by the Sub Committee; or

3.         Remit the case to the Sub Committee to dispose of it in accordance with the direction of the Court; and

4.         Make an order for costs as it sees fit.