Watford store which sold booze to 10-year-old refused licence

A Watford store which served alcohol to a 10-year-old child has been refused a new licence, after a police sergeant said the business had the “worst offending history I have ever seen”.

DKSR Supermarket, at 164 Whippendell Road, applied for a third premises licence from the council after previously having it revoked in 2010 and surrendering their licence in 2013.

However, last week Watford councillors rejected giving the business another chance, saying the applicant failed to show an understanding of licensing legislation.

The council initially stopped the supermarket serving alcohol in 2010, after a 10-year-old child was served alcohol, and other warnings from the licensing department and police were ignored.

The supermarket was granted a second chance in 2012, but then surrendered their licence in 2013 after the police found a number of alleged breaches – including the sale of vodka to a 15-year-old.

The owners submitted the new application arguing the sale of alcohol was vital to keeping the business viable, and said they were happy to meet any conditions set by the council.

The applicant, Srithas Sundralingam, holds a personal alcohol licence and operates a second off licence in West London which his representative said has not had any issues.

However, the police warned councillors “all the red flags are there” after raising concerns about past breaches.

Licensing Sergeant Luke Mitchell of Hertfordshire Constabulary told members of the committee the shop had “the worst offending history I have ever seen” and asked councillors to refuse the application.

When the licence was surrendered in 2013, police claimed there had been a string of alleged breaches of their conditions, which also included selling alcohol over the permitted ABV percentage.

At that time, the licence was held by Mounisha Srithas, the applicant and previous licence holder’s daughter, with a number of conditions.

The officer acknowledged the breaches were 10 years ago, but warned councillors there was a lack of evidence to suggest lessons had been learned.

Sergeant Mitchell said: “You may be minded to give them a third opportunity today, but my submission would be this wouldn’t be a third opportunity, this is an opportunity they have been given constantly.

“They have been warned previously and it doesn’t matter what conditions you decide to put in place today, they haven’t got the ability to manage that licence and they flagrantly breach their licences anyway.

“It doesn’t seem they’ve got the ability or the want to abide by conditions.”

The officer said he had not seen anything to address his concerns during his conversations with the supermarket’s management, or during the application.

Liam Fitzgerald, the borough council’s Community Safety Co-ordinator, said there was a “noticeable correlation” in decreasing anti-social behaviour in the area after the licence was surrendered in 2013.

Mr Sundralingam’s representative, Mr Panchal, argued his client had held a personal licence since 2006 and successfully runs a separate shop in Southall.

He added the business owner was willing to adhere to conditions suggested by council officers, and would be undergoing regular training to guarantee adherence by staff.

Mr Panchal said the business had maintained a diary of any incidents in the store in 2018, and serving alcohol was vital for the supermarket.

However, under questioning from Mr Fitzgerald, Mr Sundralingam could not answer questions in relation to the difference in percentages between low and non-alcoholic drinks.

The business owner was also unable to list the four licensing objectives that premises are assessed against, although his representative said this was down to nerves during the hearing.

However, councillors were unconvinced by the argument and rejected the application in full.

In their decision, published on February 11, the licensing sub-committee refused a new licence saying the applicant had “failed to show a clear understanding of the licensing legislation and the requirements of licensing”.

The decision added the sub-committee has encouraged the applicant to liaise with the police, community safety department, and licensing authority.