Licensing Act 2003

Notice of Decision

PREMISES

Bestone

5-7 Boxmoor Road

Romford

RM5 2SH

APPLICANT

Mr Arwin Singh Sareen

Details of the application

These applications to transfer a premises licence and to vary a Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) were made by Arwin Singh Sareen under sections 42 and 37 of the Licensing Act 2003 (the Act). 

A completed transfer application was received on the 1st May 2026 with a subsequent DPS variation application made immediately afterwards.

There had been a hearing due for two previous applications, these applications were withdrawn at the same time as the new applications were made. Negating the need for that hearing.

A fourteen-day consultation period began at this point during which the transfer application and the DPS variation were given an interim granted status under the authority of s.43(1) and s.38(1) of the Act. 

In accordance with the provisions of s.42 of the Act the transfer application was provided to the relevant responsible authorities, namely the Immigration Service and the Police. 

The s.37 DPS variation application was provided to the Police only, in accordance with s.37(4). 

The Police submitted an objection notice to the s.42 transfer application and to the s.37 DPS variation application on the 13th May 2026.

Summary

Section 44 of the Act addresses the determination of an application to transfer a premises licence.  S.44(5)(b)(ii) requires that a licensing authority must:

•        where the notice is given under section 42(8), reject the application if it considers it appropriate for the prevention of illegal working in licensed premises to do so.

The Licensing Sub-Committee must therefore determine whether to grant or to refuse this application to transfer a premises licence and to vary the DPS.  If the decision is to refuse the application to transfer the licence the DPS variation application will no longer be valid and the licence will then revert to its previous holder and DPS.

Determination of applications to transfer a premises licence and to vary a Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS)

1.         The Sub-Committee have considered two applications; to transfer the premises licence and to make a variation to the DPS, following objections received from the Metropolitan Police.

2.      The Sub-Committee were cognisant of the Secretary of States’ section 182 guidance which states at paragraph 8.101; ‘In exceptional circumstances where the chief officer of police believes the transfer may undermine the crime prevention objective, the police may object to the transfer.’

3.      The Sub-Committee were cognisant of the Secretary of States’ section 182 guidance which states at paragraph 8.102. ‘Such objections (and therefore such hearings) should only arise in truly exceptional circumstances.’

4.      The Sub-Committee were cognisant of the Secretary of States’ section 182 guidance which states at paragraph 2.1; ‘Licensing authorities should look to the police as the main source of advice on crime and disorder.’

5.      The Metropolitan Police’s objections stated that the applicant and proposed DPS, Mr Arwin Singh Sareen, association with Mr Gurmeet Singh Hakimzada  undermines the licencing objectives of the prevention of crime and disorder on the basis that Mr Hakimzada will exercises influence or control behind the scenes. This is because;

a.      Mr Gurmeet Hakimzada had his premises’ licence revoked in 2018 by Ealing Council following quantities of illegal tobacco being seized. Ealing Council’s decision to revoke the licence was appealed to the Magistrates Court & resulted in a six-week suspension whereby during that suspension the sale of alcohol continued as demonstrated by a test purchase carried out by Ealing Council officers. The licence was then revoked in March 2019.

b.      Mr Hakimzada is named as the tenant on the lease agreement with the Council (freeholder of the premises) and the applicant is the sub-lessee of the lease agreement. This arrangement is confirmed to be not permitted and is a breach of the lease as confirmed by the Council’s property services team.

c.       The applicant resides 1hr 30mins - 2hrs commute from the premises and therefore there is a question where the applicant exercises genuine day-to-day control over the premises.

6.         The applicant’s representative responded in kind as follows;

a.      The Metropolitan Police accept that they have no concerns in respect of the Mr Arwin Singh Sareen and reminded the Sub-Committee that Mr Arwin Sareen is not the applicant. Further, Mr Hakimzada’s history does not meet the exceptional circumstances test in conjunction with the licensing objective of the prevention of crime and disorder as the offending is now historic and does not fall within the definition of a relevant offence under schedule four of the Licensing Act 2003.

b.      Mr Arwin Singh Sareen is the manager of the premises and Mr Hakimzada is the  tenant of the lease agreement. At the time of the making the application, Mr Arwin Singh Sareen misunderstood the law and assumed to hold a premises licence, he must be the owner of the premises.  The position now is that Mr Arwin Singh Sareen will not be the tenant of the lease agreement but rather the manager of the premises.

c.       Mr Arwin Singh Sareen will be moving residence closer to the premises but in any case, he as the DPS will ensure that the licensing objectives are properly promoted and the operation of premises complies with the licensing regime. Mr Arwin Singh Sareen is a personal licence holder that understands the licensing regime.

Decision

7.           The Sub-Committee granted both applications as the Sub-Committee were not persuaded by the Metropolitan Police that granting the applications would undermine the licensing objective of the prevention of crime and disorder for the following reasons;

a.      The Metropolitan Police detailed Mr Hakimzada’s offending by way of providing Ealing Council’s decision letter as stated above in paragraph 5a. No other details were provided such as whether Mr Hakimzada’s offending included a conviction for an offence under the Licensing Act 2003 (sale of alcohol whilst the premises licence was suspended) and for an offence in respect of unpaid duty. Without clarity and amplification of the offending from the Metropolitan Police, the Sub-Committee were not presented with anything to confirm the offending falls under the definition of as a relevant offence or whether there are any convictions that remain unspent and therefore cumulatively there are exceptional circumstances that a transfer may undermine the crime prevention objective

b.         Mr Arwin Singh Sareen clarified that he is not a party to any lease agreement but will be the licence holder and the manager of the premises. The Sub-Committee were conscious that the applicant will be responsible for the premises licence, not Mr Hakimzada, and will be responsible for ensuring that the operation of the premises continues to uphold all four licensing objectives.

c.       The Sub-Committee reminded themselves that the Metropolitan Police, or any other responsible authority & residents, are able to bring the licence back to the Sub-Committee for a review hearing should the premises undermine any of the licensing objectives.

8.         The Sub-Committee therefore granted both applications.

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.