Agenda item

Be Health Chinese Medical Centre, 98 Shaftesbury Avenue, London, W1D 5EQ (“The Premises”)

16/09470/LIMSTR

A request was received from the City Inspectors to revoke the special treatment premises licence for Be Health Chinese Medical Centre Ltd, 98 Shaftesbury Avenue, London, W1D 5EQ. On 21 September 2017 the licence holder was successfully prosecuted by the Council in the City of London Magistrates Court for breaching a condition on the licence regarding touting. The licence holder was fined £750 and was ordered to pay costs of £1,500. Following the successful prosecution, the City Inspectors Team Manager requested that the Licensing Sub-Committee hear the request to revoke the special treatment licence.

Decision:

The Sub-Committee carefully considered all of the material received from the parties involved.  The Sub-Committee also heard submissions and evidence at the hearing prior to Members retiring to reach a decision.

Mr Keegan, the City Inspectors Team Manager, confirmed that the company holding the licence also operated three other venues in Westminster. The issue of touting from the Premises in question had been to court on 21 September 2017 where the licence holder had been successfully prosecuted. The licence holder was responsible for compliance with the conditions on the licence however there had been several other instances where they had been breached. The Sub-Committee therefore had to make a decision on whether it was satisfied for the licence holder to continue to hold a special treatments licence. Mr Keegan stressed that he had no confidence in the company or the licence holder in ensuring that no further breaches of the conditions took place.

Mr Carter, representing the licence holder, confirmed that Dr Bi accepted that touting had taken place by her staff but there were mitigating and extenuating circumstances. Following the incident in question Dr Bi believed that her solicitor was in contact with the relevant authorities, unfortunately this was not the case, she had been badly let down by her solicitor who if they had submitted a response would have resulted in the case not going to court. Subsequently Dr Bi was prosecuted and fined.

Mr Carter explained that Dr Bi had held four special treatment licences since 2005. During this time none had been refused and no prosecutions had taken place demonstrating over an extended period of time that Dr Bi could be considered a fit and proper person. When Dr Bi was made aware of a staff member touting from the Premises she would have disciplined the staff member but the Sub-Committee was advised that the City Inspectors did not advise her who the member of staff was. Following the incident, a staff notice sheet was introduced making staff aware of the requirements of the licence conditions. All staff were required to sign it when they first joined the company and every six months thereafter. Since the breach no further breaches had occurred over the last twelve months and all the conditions on the licence had been fully complied with. Dr Bi had learned from the experience and the measures put in place would ensure it never happened again.

The Sub-Committee had two options, either to revoke the licence or to allow it to continue. Mr Carter was of the opinion that revoking it would be disproportionate as the licence holder had addressed the breach detailed and introduced due diligence measures. These had worked as no further touting had taken place from the Premises since the incident and it therefore posed no threat to health and safety. Dr Bi was aware that any repeat occurrence of the breach would result in her losing her special treatment licence. Mr Carter suggested that if the licence was revoked Dr Bi could still operate under exempt body legislation.

The Sub-Committee stressed that the licence holder was completely responsible for ensuring any conditions on the licence were not breached and putting forward an argument that the licence holder’s solicitor was to blame was not satisfactory. Therefore, the Sub-Committee asked what evidence could be provided which gave it confidence that no further breaches would occur in the future. Mr Carter highlighted that Dr Bi had demonstrated over the last twelve months that all four of her venues could be operated without any breaches in the conditions. Following the incident due diligence had been undertaken and appropriate measures had now been introduced. Finally, Mr Carter would be visiting the Premises on a regular basis to conduct staff training and ensure there were no further breaches. Dr Bi admitted that a member of her staff had touted during the incident in question but the measures brought in by Mr Carter would ensure that it would not occur in the future.

Mr Keegan explained that he had dealt with Dr Bi over numerous years and he had no confidence in her ability to manage the Premises in an appropriate manner.

The Sub-Committee carefully considered the application and all the submissions and evidence provided before it. Dissatisfaction was expressed that the failure of the licence holder’s solicitor to contact the relevant authorities had been used as a mitigating measure. The licence holder was 100% responsible with regards to the licence and it was unacceptable for blame as to why the licence holder was prosecuted to be proportioned elsewhere. However, the Sub-Committee decided not to revoke the licence as the licence holder had implemented appropriate measures to ensure any further instances of touting would not occur in the future. It had also been demonstrated over the last twelve months that the Premises could be operated successfully without any breaches of conditions. The licence holder was reminded however that the future conduct of the Premises had to be exemplary from now on. The seriousness of the incident was noted and the licence holder was notified that all four of her Premises would be closely monitored by the City Inspectors. The Sub-Committee was clear that any recurrence in the breach of conditions would be highly likely to result in the licence being revoked.