Licensing Sub-Committee - Tuesday 7 October 2025, 7:00pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting
Licensing Sub-Committee
Tuesday, 7th October 2025 at 7:00pm
Speaking:
An agenda has not been published for this meeting.
Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.
Welcome to this meeting of the licencing subcommittee, which is being held as a hybrid meeting.
This meeting is being webcast, and please bear with us if there are any technical issues.
My name is Councillor French, and I am chairing this meeting.
I can also confirm that Councillor Varifaraj will be attending this meeting instead of
Councillor Davies, who was originally named on the agenda.
Agenda I can confirm that councillor of our garage is a member of the licencing committee and therefore eligible to attend as a decision -maker
And she had received all the relevant paperwork in advance of the meeting
I will now invite the councillors followed by the officers to introduce themselves
Good evening everyone. I'm councillor about the roge
Oh good evening everybody I'm councillor Rosemary virtual
Officers would we start in the room, please?
Hello, my name is Julie Hopkins, I'm a licencing officer
My name is just be sinkable not yet, sir. We're just going for the officers. Yep
Online
Guy Bishop, Legal Advisor to the Sub -licencing Subcommittee.
Can you close the door please Miss Hickey? Thank you.
That's okay. May I just ask who you are? You representatives or?
Yes, family. Okay, can I just ask you to just take a seat just over here?
The back? Thank you. Usually at the back wall.
Thank you.
Are there any, we will move on to agenda items 1 and 2.
Are there any apologies for absence or declarations of interest for any of the items on the agenda?
If yes, please could you confirm the apology for absence slash declaration of interest?
No, thank you.
Agenda item 3.
We will now consider the application for a review of the premises licence in respect
of the premises known as Londie's 1 -4 Orbian Square, London, SW15 5NT.
I now invite the licencing officer to present the report.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor.
The Home Office Immigration Enforcement has applied for a review of the premises licence
as held by Chasbir Singh Kapoor, Volundis, 1 -4 Auburn Square, London SW15, 5 NT,
on the grounds that they believe the licence holder has failed to meet the licencing objective
of prevention of crime and disorder, as illegal working has been identified at these premises.
A copy of the review application, including the review pack, which details the reason for the enforcement visit
on 30 October 2024 what was found during the visit and the outcomes sought by Immigration
Enforcement. These documents have been provided to the licensee, Mr Kapoor, and to the Licencing
Subcommittee. In accordance with Regulation 38 of the Licencing Act, Premises Licence
and Club Premises Certificates, Regulations 2005, the responsible authorities were sent
a copy of the application for the review at the same time as it was provided to the licensee.
In addition, the application was advertised near the premises, at the Council offices,
and on the Council's website from 19 August 2025 until 15 September 2025.
No representations either in support or against the review application have been received
during the consultation period.
I refer the subcommittee to paragraphs 15 to 17 of the committee report which outlines
the options that are open to you when deciding this review.
Immigration enforcement are requesting the premises licence be revoked.
Councillors, I have laid out the brief facts of the review application and I would be happy
to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you, Ms. Hopkins.
Subcommittee, are there any further questions from you counsellors?
No? Okay, we'll move on. Ms. Hopkins, could you please be so kind. Sorry to disturb you,
but just because you're closer, that door is open, and I think that if you could just close
it for me, if you wouldn't mind. The one at the back, yeah, the one in the gallery, I think that's
That's where a lot of the noise was coming from.
Thank you.
Just so in case we get some people in the corridor again.
Much appreciated, thank you.
I will now invite the applicant, Mr. Sharp, for the review of Lundy's to address the subcommittee, after which questions may be asked of you.
Please introduce yourself, Mr. Sharp.
You will now have the opportunity to address the subcommittee.
Thank you.
I'm Immigration Officer Sharp from the South London Immigration Enforcement Team.
Cleo Cassius will be reading the script that we have for you.
Hello.
I'm immigration officer Cleopatra Cassius from the South London Immigration Enforcement
Team.
Firstly, I would just like to confirm that all the committee members have had time to
read the submission pack.
I don't propose to read through the full pack, but I will make a couple of key points before
I summarise the case.
The ability to work illegally is a key driver of illegal migration.
It encourages people to break the UK's immigration laws and provides the practical means for
migrants to remain unlawfully in the UK.
It encourages people to take risks in trying to enter the UK illegally by putting their
lives in the hands of unscrupulous people smugglers and leaves them vulnerable to exploitative
employers.
Illegal working results in businesses that are not playing by the rules and undercutting
legitimate businesses that are.
It also negatively impacts on the wages of lawful workers and can be linked to other
labour market abuse, such as tax evasion, breach of the national minimum wage, and exploitative
working conditions.
Employing illegal workers undermines the licence objectives, specifically the prevention of
crime and disorder.
Immigration enforcement do not just drive around looking for businesses to target.
We are intelligence -led and there have to be significant concerns for us to action incoming
intelligence. We do not routinely refer to seek a licence review, but we do so in cases
where we have heightened concerns. On the 30th of October, 2024, the South London Immigration
Compliance and Enforcement ICE team visited Londis, 1 -4 Auburn Square in Roehampton after
intelligence was received that the business owner was employing illegal workers. Entry
of the premises was gained at approximately 17 ,100 hours under Section 179 of the Licencing Act 2003.
The officers encountered a total of three employees, of which one was identified as an
immigration offender. It should be noted that the licence holder and business owner, Kapoor,
was present during the enforcement visit. Kapoor appeared visibly anxious when questioned by
officers and provided a statement that conflicted with the account given by the individual found to
working illegally. Kapoor claimed that Rana was on a trial period of approximately one month,
working 20 hours per week, and had not yet received any payment. In contrast, Rana admitted
to having worked at Londis for around four months, averaging 40 hours per week, and stated that he
had been paid 400 pounds in cash. Both parties confirmed that prior to starting work, Rana
Rana presented his student visa to Kapoor.
A copy of his entry clearance card shows the condition,
work permitted to 20 hours per week during term time.
Rana admitted to working 40 hours per week,
which is twice the limit permitted by his visa.
Had Kapoor conducted the relevant right to work cheques,
he could have quickly established that Rana's leave was curtailed
and that he had no longer had the right to work in the UK.
Furthermore, Kapoor's attempt to justify Rana's presence at the premises
by claiming he was only on a trial period cannot be accepted as a valid excuse.
As an employer, Kapoor should be conducting right -to -work cheques prior to commencing any
form of work.
This includes trial shifts and training periods.
Failing to do so demonstrates a disregard for the responsibilities expected of an employer
under immigration law.
Kapoor, in his role of licence holder and designated premises supervisor, has failed
to uphold the licencing objectives to prevent crime and disorder.
A referral has been made to the civil penalty compliance team in relation to the illegal
working and consequently a £40 ,000 civil penalty was issued to Kapor Ltd on the 5th
of February 2025 for employing one individual who had no right to work in the UK.
The penalty remains unpaid and has since been referred to a third party debt collection
agency.
The non -compliance with the civil penalty was taken into account when considering action
against the licence.
The guidance clearly states that right -to -work cheques should be completed for all prospective
employees.
Should this have been followed, the licence holder could have prevented illegal working
act premises.
The Home Office provides a free right -to -work cheque system on the GOV .UK website, and using
this checking service would have highlighted the fact that the worker did not hold the
relevant right -to -work.
Section 182, Guidance at Point 11 .27, outlines certain criminal activity that may arise in
connexion with licenced premises which should be treated particularly seriously.
This includes employing a person who is disqualified from that work by reason of their immigration
status in the UK.
Point 11 .28 states that where a view arises from such activity and the licencing 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.
All of that being said, we recognise that our role is to bring these concerns to your attention as the local licencing authority.
This is your area and it's you that has the answer to the answer and represents the interest of the local people.
So unless I can answer any specific questions, I don't propose to take any more of your time and I thank you for your attention.
Thank you, Miss Cassius, thank you.
Does the subcommittee have any questions for the applicant?
Councillor Burchill.
Just before you go, I just realised, I think it was an oversight, but Ms Hickey, I don't
think we noted you on, did you say who you were in our offices?
Okay, just for the record that we have Ms Hickey here, she's a Democratic Services Officer
and Clerk for the meeting.
Thank you.
Councillor Burchall.
Shall I use? We can share. Thank you.
Yes, I was wondering in your statement you said you inferred that you were expecting to find more than one employee that might have not been allowed to work.
So, the intelligence that was received for the reason for the first visit in the first
place were just that the licence holder or the owner was employing illegal workers.
That was just the intelligence that we had.
Have you been back again to cheque that they are not employing anybody else?
No, the further visit hasn't been conducted.
Councillor Parafaraj, did you have any questions?
The only question I had was whether the fine would have been paid, but you've already addressed
that in your statement saying that it's not and it's gone to third party.
I have a question.
Why has it taken this breach happened in 2024?
Is there a reason why it's coming to us now after 12 months?
Yeah, allowances were made for the civil penalty to be paid because there was no effort in
that being addressed.
That's why the licence review has been recommended.
So had the penalty been paid, would we be having this review meeting?
If Mr. Kapoor had made some payments, they make allowances.
It doesn't have to be paid in a lump sum or anything like that, which he would have been
informed of.
If some sort of payments had been made on a regular basis, showing a willing that he
made mistakes and was trying to address the issue, then the licence review wouldn't have
been recommended, I don't think.
Thank you.
And just a bit of information from our side, because we don't deal with immigration cheques.
What would have been the appropriate thing for Mr. Kapor to do in terms of ensuring that
there was eligibility to work in the UK?
because my reading of the notes is that he did show this work card.
So initially, just revealing it could have been that he was working double the amount of hours that he was,
but actually he wasn't meant to be working at all.
So could just for our background and our knowledge, could you just share what the procedure should have been?
Yes, as Cleo mentioned in the statement, there is a facility on the Gov website,
which is free of charge where all employees should cheque their employees
eligibility to work. If he had done so Mr. Rana would have had to provide a
cheque code. It's a similar process if you were applying for a driving job you can
do the same thing where you get a cheque code for your driving licence you
submitted to the employer, they can see that you've got a driving licence and you can drive
how many points you have on your licence, things like that. It's exactly the same, but
it tells them what they're allowed to work, how many hours they're allowed to work for,
how long until the next period of when he has to conduct an additional cheque. Had he
that he would have known that Mr Rana's visa was cancelled long before he even started
employment at the Londis.
Thank you for that information. It's incredibly useful. Any further questions, subcommittee?
Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions of clarification on anything that's been stated?
So that is from Mr Panchal.
Is there any areas of clarification in what you've heard?
Just clarification at this moment.
Yeah, a couple of clarifications, ma 'am, to the immigration that...
A question though, so not a statement.
So please make sure it's a question.
Thank you.
It would be a question.
The question was, did he have the...
when you when you came in to cheque for the illegal worker, did he have the BRP card which was valid until November 2026? Am I right in saying that?
No, he didn't provide us with any evidence which he should have done to confirm he conducted
any cheques whatsoever.
If he had carried out the cheque code which I previously mentioned, he could have printed
off or saved it onto his phone to show that he had done the relevant cheque which would
have been day -stamped as well.
Sorry, my question is not for Mr. Prapoor.
My question is when they visited, because you see the PRP card here.
So my question is to the immigration, did they see the PRP card, which was valid?
So...
There is a PRP card.
Okay, so I'm going to just interpret this question because I can't see where the clarification
is and Mr Bishop's not here so he's online but I think I can read in between.
So I think he's speaking about the Rana, yes?
Whether he had the appropriate card in his possession, not the employer when he was there.
I don't know about that.
I wasn't on the visit concerned.
If he did have it, he would have been taken off of him.
But I don't know if he had it on him or whether it was taken off of him.
He didn't say that he, Mr.
Sorkapour didn't say that he had been shown that card.
But even if he had, he should still be doing the cheque code.
Thank you. Any other questions of clarification?
One more clarification. We see in the report which says that the outstanding fines have not been paid.
We have an evidence with us which says the fines have been paid.
So...
Okay, one second.
Well, there...
I'm just going to...
For you, as of today, you're not aware of any monies being paid because it's been over
to a third party.
Can I ask when you last had any contact with that third party to see if any payments...
Is it something you cheque in with every week, every month to see if it is paid?
What's that relationship so that you get timely information?
I don't believe once it's been, the debt gets sold off to a debt collection company,
that it is no, the fees for that do not come back to the Home Office.
The debt collection company take ownership of that debt, so we haven't been made privy
to that information.
Okay, so I have a question on that.
When – maybe it was in here, but if you could just remind me, when was it passed over
to the debt company? Do you have a date for when that went over to the debt
collection company?
No, we don't have that information. Do you usually have a timescale which you may
just in terms of an estimation is it there a procedure like after six months,
three months so forth that it's passed over? I can't answer that question I don't know.
This is the first instance that I know of where a debt hasn't been attempted to be paid
and it is being sold on to a debt collection company. I've never heard of this happening
before. So just to infer usually you would say it
happens quite speedily that's why it's never because you can't say when it was passed over
So it's just to give a balance. It could be that it's three months
They've paid in the fourth month, but as we can't ascertain when it was passed over
But we don't know how long the period was that it went unpaid with the home office
No other than it would have been a reasonable amount of time for payments to have been started
If I was taking a guess I would probably say at least six months
Thank you for that
Mr Kapoor, do you have any other questions of clarification?
Not of evidence of payment will come to that.
We have questions as the subcommittee, but just anything of clarification on what Ms Cassius has stated.
Yes, ma 'am. My question to Kathy is in her presentation she said if the debt was paid,
they wouldn't be going for a revocation or bring it up.
So would that stand if the debt was paid?
I think I can answer that because of what Mr Sharpe has just said which is it wasn't
paid to the Home Office in the time that they would have expected hence it's gone on to
a third party.
So as far as they're concerned the debt has not been paid even though you may present
evidence this evening to say that it has been paid to the third party.
To answer your question is if it had been paid to the Home Office then it's unlikely
we would be having this procedure this evening. But as it was not paid to the home office
and has now been, if you're going to submit evidence today, being paid to a third party,
it leaves us in the position that we're in this evening.
I can explain to you.
Well, when you have your moment of explanation, which I'll come to you in a minute, you'll have
your time to do so. Councillor Valferage.
Thank you, Chair. It was just a question. In the report, it says that the tier four leave
was curtailed in January 2024.
Could you just explain to me what Tier 4 means?
And just a little bit more clarification
on what that is so I can have a better understanding.
It's just a student visa.
So they have different tiers depending
on what they're studying, et cetera, stuff like that.
So yeah, his one was curtailed in January 2024,
months before he stated he was employed at this business.
Councillor Burch, would you have any further questions?
I know there's been a lot of discussion since.
So we have had questions from the subcommittee.
We've had questions of clarification.
I will now invite the licence holder's representative, Mr Pancho, to address the subcommittee, after
which questions may be asked of you.
Also please introduce yourself, Mr Pancho and Mr Kapoor, the licence holder.
You now have the opportunity to adjust the subcommittee.
Thank you.
I am Mr. Panchal, representing Mr. Kapoor.
My name is Jasbir Singh Kapoor.
My name is Jasbir Singh Kapoor.
I am the shop.
Thank you, Madam.
Madam, I am going to try and be as brief as possible.
We do understand.
We do understand that Mr. Kapoor has, being a designated payment supervisor and a licenced
holder, created this problem that he apologises for what has happened.
In the first instance, like I said earlier, there was a BRP card when that person came
to the shop for employment, and that BRP card was valid.
Mr Kapoor did not notice that he had to go around and cheque the share code, which is
normally free, as we heard from the immigration officer.
And that's the mistake that he created, which he has learnt a lesson from.
He's been running the shop since 2005.
2024, he's been running the shop.
He has fully cooperated during his inspection of the immigration officer, if I'm not mistaken.
He has shown complete transparency throughout the process.
Since being notified of the issue, he's taken clear steps to rectify the matters and ensure
full compliance with both licencing and employment legislations are looked into.
Now I'm going to show you what he's done.
So that will give you an idea that when that mistake occurred, what normally shopkeepers have to do.
His shop is right opposite the college, which is a college where overseas students are studying.
And plenty of times he gets overseas students coming to him to say, look, we are here to do your 20 hours job.
If you want us, we are legally and that.
But at that very instance, he didn't need it because it's a family -run business.
his wife is running with him, he himself runs the shop and it's quite sufficient for them
to run it on their own.
They came to a situation where they required somebody and this chap came in and he showed
the BRP card that he is ready to work until November 2026 and the mistake he made in going
forward was not to cheque the share code that normally the immigration department has got
to do.
and that is where Mr Kapoor made a mistake.
But it is important to note that the worker was working 20 hours a week and not 40 hours a week.
He said that but he wasn't working 40 hours a week, that is absolutely correct.
And he had failed to look at the share code.
There is no evidence on ongoing deliberate non -compliance at the moment.
The reason I'm saying that is immediately he learned a lesson and immediately approached
us because we had done this licence before.
We are a company that we look after licences in the area.
I've been here so many times, ma 'am.
And what he's done is now has a training manual.
And in the training manual, you will see there is a refusal book, all the matters.
And in the training while we are discussing about immigration, there is a right to work
checklist which is supplied by the immigration. So he's now got right to
cheque the education by the immigration. So any future employment if he
needs to employ, he has got that right to cheque and he knows what to do with that.
So, he has got himself into that.
There is no, if you look at the goodwill of Mr Kapoor running the shop, this shop has
been there since 2005, but the goodwill is, he hasn't breached any of the conditions laid
out by the licencing officers or enforcement officers during his running of the shop till
today.
This is his first instant.
Hence, you will see no responsible authorities today supported this application or come forward
to support the application with the immigration because there was no licencing matters which
were concerned with the shop.
That's so important to learn.
We do make mistakes, everybody makes mistakes, and we do.
And Mr Kapoor has admitted that he's made a mistake.
He has lost a lot of confidence in why these have had this mistake done, and he's making
sure that all the staff in future, if he has to employ, he will make sure they are looked
into.
Now coming back to the money part of it, we could hear from the Immigration Department
and that is what my question or my clarification was, that if the fine was paid, yes we wouldn't
come here to have the Immigration Department.
I have an evidence today, ma 'am, that out of the 40 ,000 fine that was due for the immigration,
32 ,000 is the balance left, 8 ,000 has already been paid.
And we have a payment structure and they are fine paid.
What we have also done is, from your permission as a chair, if you want, we have had five
copies which we want to circulate.
We understand that it is their duty to approve to this, but I have made five copies if you
interested to have a look at that.
following this incident, Mr Kapoor has implemented several robust measures to prevent any recurrence,
which we have just showed you.
All current and future employees now undergo Home Office Right to Work cheques with documentary
evidence kept on file.
A staff record system has been established to ensure transparency and inspection readiness.
Mr Kapoor has completed compliance, due diligence training and continues to update his knowledge
using Home Office guidance.
These proactive steps demonstrate his commitment to the prevention of crime and disorder, one
of the core licencing objectives.
Revocation of the licence would have a
disappropriate and devastating impact
on the Kapoor and his family.
The Licencing Act 2003 Section guidance wanted
to emphasise that any action taken must be appropriate,
proportionate to promote the licencing objectives.
Given the isolated nature of this incident
and the remedial actions taken,
revocation would be an unnecessary harsh outcome.
This is what we feel at this moment.
8 ,000 payments have been made towards a fine for the illegal worker which shows they are
willing to rectify their mistake and uphold the responsibility.
The subcommittee is invited to consider that this case presents ongoing risk to the licencing
groups and that the steps taken are sufficient to ensure full future compliance.
That's what we feel. We are proposing to this committee to come up with a
comprehensive conditions laid out after this incident. A comprehensive staff
register including right -to -work documentation will be maintained, made
available for inspection upon request by any responsible authority. This is what
we will be keeping the training menu. The DPS will ensure that all staff
involving recruitment or management complete right -to -work compliance training within 28
days.
The DPS will personally review and sign the compliance file every quarter to ensure continuous
adherence.
This was an isolated incident, not reflective of the day -to -day running of the business
or the standards management command demonstrated over many years.
The absence of objections from all other small authorities is strong evidence of the trust
and confidence placed into the Kapoor and the premises.
In light of the remedial steps taken, clean compliance history and continued cooperation,
the Subcommittee is respectfully asked to retain the premises licence and, if deemed
appropriate, consider a short suspension for additional conditions as a proportionate alternate
to revocation.
That's where our presentation is met.
I'm happy to take any questions.
Thank you.
Does the subcommittee have any questions for the representative?
Councillor Varafraj.
What was the original delay in making the payment?
I know that you've made the $8 ,000 now, but what was the reason for the delay?
Hello, ma 'am.
The first thing when I received the letter, on that letter they say, Mr. Kapoor, you are
not guilty.
I received the green letter.
On behalf of letter, I not understand that you are not guilty, but end of the letter
they mentioned it small.
You are not guilty, but your company, Mr. Jeevi Kapoor, is guilty.
And unfortunately, my company is registered on my account, account at address, and I not
got any kind of letter.
I not got any kind of letter on that, otherwise I can pay 28 ,000 on the same day.
But I not receive any letter from anybody.
I just receive only one letter from the home office on the green letter.
They say, Mr. Kapoor, you are not guilty anything.
But end of the small page they are writing, you are not guilty, but your company is guilty,
G .V.
Kapoor.
That's the misunderstanding going on.
And my company is listed on my account address.
And account does not receive any kind of letter.
And the last letter which is sent to me on the last time which is already done.
And he say, Mr. Kapoor, you have paid 40 ,000 pound.
I say how I received the letter and on the same letter they say you're not guilty anything like that
And what should I do you say? I don't know you can talk and the same day I can talk to the
This Martin law and say what is the best reason he said no you are fail within 28 days
You have to pay 28 thousand pound if not you pay now you have paid 40 ,000 pay
I say what is the 40 thousands too much money for me?
How can I pay and say your future plan like this eight thousand pay in front and thirty two thousand pay monthly eight -handed something?
I say, okay, I agree.
I'm supposed to agree about that.
I'm not saying I'm not paying.
I'm paying fully payment.
But the main reason which you're asking why you delayed the payment, I received in the
beginning, green letter.
On the green letter, they show Mr. Kapoor, you're not guilty.
That's the misunderstanding going.
I'm not guilty.
I say, oh, I'm for freedom.
I don't get any kind of guilty.
But on the same last line, they say you are not guilty.
Your company is guilty.
G .V. Kapoor.
That's the misunderstanding going on.
And my company is registered on my account address.
and that's the main thing.
Do you have that letter with you this evening?
The letter that you've referenced in your submission just now,
do you have a copy of it?
Where is it, please?
Just so we can see what you're speaking about.
Yep, that's fine.
Councillor Burch, you're in the interim,
do you have any questions?
Sorry, yes. I'm slightly confused now. Well, when did you find out that – well, you had
the interview and you knew that you had done something wrong. Your lawyer is saying that
you admit you had something wrong. But when the letter came, you thought, well, it's not
me, it's my business.
On the letter, I already, because I have not much funds, so I already raised the fund from
the loan. I already received everything. I made a plan because everybody told if something
happened, you can pay 28 ,000 pound in the front, so no action will take against you.
I erase everything but the letter which I got it on the letter they say Mr. Kapoor you are not guilty and your company is guilty
But company is not on my address
Company's account at address and accounted not receive any kind of letter any kind of letter on that which I say 20 if I receive the
Letter why should I pay 40 ,000 paid rather than I can pay 28 ,000 point. That's the delay of this
Okay, Mr. Kapoor
Councillor Burch, just so I can carry what he's saying, which is that it's, wait one minute, can you turn the mic off please?
That's fine.
What I'm understanding is, is that the documentation came to, let's just say, not his, well, the right address.
But it was a separate address which the business is registered to, so he didn't receive that notification.
I just would like to see the letter, because having read it, he should have been noted that there was a fine to pay.
I have a question.
It said that he was completely transparent.
However, in looking at the interview, there was obviously a difference of payment, start
date, hours.
I would say that doesn't feel like he's been transparent in that issue.
Mr...
The...
Yeah, okay.
Ma 'am, I can explain to my past experience rather than his.
Well, I would prefer to have this experience just because it's about this case.
We can wait for him to come back, but it does feel as though we can't bring past or other
applicants into this specific issue, but having read the documents, it feels like there's
not...
There's no coherency between what Mr Rana says and what the shop...
The licence holder has said.
So I don't think there's a question for you to answer here if it's not going to be about this particular case.
Yeah, ma 'am, I know you're asking for the payment system that's paid to the employer, sorry, to the employee.
Well, not particularly. I'm just challenging your assertion that said he was completely transparent
because when looking at the interview, we have two different sets of accounts.
The employee is saying one thing and he is saying another and those things do not match up.
Obviously, the employee is not here today to give any evidence, but I would question
the integrity of his answers because they're different to that of the employee.
And in many ways, the employee has, I would infer, not a reason to lie, but many ways
much more to lose.
So he says he was working 40 hours, your client says it was 20.
So had there been, say, honesty between the two, I would have expected the answers that
they both gave to align. So that's it. There's probably not a question here. But I just wanted
to push back on your assertion that there had been complete transparency in the process
because the answers that each party gave was very different and we're not here to, we cannot
establish who is telling an untruth or not. But the fact that there's two different sets
of answers gives that somebody's not being honest.
He's being honest but I'll let him come back and...
Yep, well he's looking for the left side.
If he could hurry that along, that would be great.
Councillor Val Faraj and then Councillor Bertrall.
Thank you, Jenna.
It was just to your point as well,
because I know in your statement you said
that Mr. Kapoor had seen the BRP card,
but it also states that Mr. Kapoor confirmed
that he had seen the student visa,
and on the student visa it does clearly state
that 20 hours limited working,
again it wasn't a question,
but it was just a point to what you've said,
that only seeing the BRP card,
when in fact he confirmed he'd seen
the student visa as well.
When a student finishes, if you can clarify that, when a student finishes his university,
they then get some sort of period where they can stay here and work, when their visas are legal,
and they have got a visa to work on to.
I think there is, after graduation, there is two years period that they can work here.
But they had to have a visa for that, and he's B .A. or B .A.,
But we didn't realise or he didn't realise or this employee did not say correctly to Mr. Kapoor
that he had not visited the college and that is why his college had revoked his visas.
And that's the green letter that is on the shelf.
I was just given an opportunity for the councillors to review the – and I also just for parity
We can clarity show it to you as well as immigration officers, applicants.
Do you have a question, Councillor Burchall?
You have given us this piece of paper saying that he has paid money.
It's just a piece of paper.
Two things.
One, the first payment was a week ago.
So that was a long time after even the immigration officers put in for the provoking of the licence,
I mean, several weeks after they put it in.
And this proves absolutely nothing.
I mean, it's your paper and it's got his name on it.
doesn't say where the money's come from, gone to.
It's just some figures.
That receipt has come from the company Martin Law, who
collects the immigration money.
It is not a letter we have prepared.
This letter is not prepared by us.
Is this the debt collector?
Yeah, yeah, yes.
I'm sorry.
So that's not a paper that we have.
Okay.
Thank you.
So Councillor Burchill was just establishing that this is from the debt collecting agency
and this is just a statement of the balance.
I didn't hear, sorry I was looking at and just making sure enforcement officers had
an opportunity to see the letter, well the screenshot of the letter to be accurate.
What was the delay in paying?
Is it because you said it was the address that had gone somewhere?
So just for clarity, when were you first aware that your business, not yourself, had been
fined?
When accounted, send me the last letter.
I want to know a date in the month, please, or at least the month.
So what month are we speaking about?
On my other phone.
It's almost only one month ago because I take the time from this Martin company to raise
some money for me, at least give me some time.
He told me the company I give you till the end of this month, so you take the payment.
So last letter I received one month ago, only one month ago.
It's not one month ago, it's only 30 days ago I received the last letter which account
had sent me.
Just so you know, officers, you'll have a chance for a question of clarification.
So you'll have that.
So you're saying you didn't know that there was a fine.
You was unaware that you had any fine, that this you thought it would be fine.
Even though you had been employing someone illegally, you didn't think there would be
any punishment.
No, no, I know I get the punishment.
That's why I know at least because I think it's already maybe I punish it because it's
happened something wrong.
But when the letter I receive on the green letter,
that's Mr. Kapoor, you're not guilty.
This is a little bit misunderstanding going on.
And no any kind of future letter I received from the home office,
only the one letter which other letter is not came
only because companies normally be registered to the accountant,
because he did all these kind of things.
And when he received the last letter,
he told me, Mr. Kapoor,
you're guilty 40 ,000 times,
take immediately action against them,
Otherwise, enforcement will come to you.
Okay, so what I'm inferring here is that
it would have been highly unusual for the Home Office
to not have notified the person who had been fined,
which is the business in this case.
I cannot imagine them not notifying.
What your defence or mitigation is,
is that your accountant did not inform you.
Yeah, an accountant also told me he did not receive any letter.
I don't know.
The same thing is happening.
He is not here this evening.
I would find it quite unusual that he would not have received anything in that period of time.
Just because the Home Office are quite hot on these things.
Councillor Vampiraj, did you have another question?
Mr Bishop is coming in.
We cannot see you on the screen here, Mr Bishop.
Thank you.
I was just saying that they would be writing to Mr Kapoor.
They would not be writing to his accountant.
Because they do not know who his accountant is.
He's saying that his business address is with the accountant, so any mail that would
have been to the licensee as the business address, that's where it goes essentially.
So that's how he found out was that they wrote to him at his business and that is at
the accountant's address, Mr Bishop.
Thank you.
Okay, can we just take 30 seconds because there's been a lot of information shared
at the minute.
So before this incident, what is the procedure you can ask one question before that.
Did you interview this Mr Rana yourself?
You met him, you did this interview with him, you employed him.
It was not another member of staff, it was yourself.
Yes.
Okay.
Okay, you note that it was said it's usually a family business.
What has been the procedure?
We can see you've got procedures in place now, but what had been the procedure before
this to cheque?
So what do you usually do to cheque someone has legitimate status to undertake employment
in the UK?
Basically, I cheque is work permit is already showed the working 20 hours.
insurance, national insurance number,
is passport validity, everything I checked.
But on these day, new, new, share code is launched,
which I exactly, I don't know about that.
The main thing was that, but he told me,
I'm going to university and I'm attending university.
But he tell what, I don't know,
because he not give the interview in front of me.
He give the interview in front of the home office team,
which is not in front of me.
Inside the room, he can say anything against me.
But as I know, he gave me the proper 20 hours work, which is possible.
Okay, thank you. And I have another question.
Just for my information, what days was he working?
Because it says he's working, he says 40 hours, you say 20 hours.
So what was his pattern of work?
He's going to university sometime, because as a family shop, when I need it...
No, no, no, I just need to know what he was on the rotor.
What was the rotor for him?
Sometimes it's coming early in the morning for working,
and sometimes it's coming when I need it,
when I need it Mr. come, he can come in the evening time.
But normally come in the evening time to work.
Normally come evening time.
Normally evening, so he -
Yeah, because my wife is pregnant, so -
Okay, that's fine.
You don't need to go into any further detail
about personal information.
What I wanted to establish, whether he worked in the day,
but you're saying it was early mornings and late,
and in the evening times.
Yeah, sometimes when he's not attending the university or where he's going, then he comes
I possible.
Well, I think what this the home office has established that he was not attending university.
So even when he was not.
That's why that's that's why you're saying the wrong statement.
That's why he's saying because he.
That's fine.
I just he's not here.
So that's either here nor there.
But the investigation established that he had not enrolled or had been attended.
So I wanted to just see because that's where 20 hours 40 hours if he's coming 9 till 8 every day
Then obviously he's not going to university because he's in the shop all of the time. You've been incredibly helpful with your answers
Councillor any more questions from the subcommittee?
Okay at this point we have no more questions from the subcommittee
I
Have one more you mentioned something to do if it being 28 ,000 if you paid before but the civil penalty said
40 ,000. Is there a discount if you pay early?
I can explain. It's regular and they will explain. Initially when the fine comes in,
whatever the fine is, 40 ,000 per person, the immigration would give a chance to
the offender that if you pay immediately you can pay 28 ,000. If you
don't pay immediately then you pay 40 ,000. Am I right in saying that?
She can't answer but...
Yeah, but that's the way the immigration works.
So they get a letter to say, pay 28 ,000 fully, we will close the matter.
Or if you don't want to pay 28 ,000, which most of the shopkeepers cannot afford to pay, they have two people.
So they would then be given a time to pay, but then they have to pay the full amount.
And, okay, that's fine. And just for this proceedings, you don't have that letter that was sent that says this.
He says he never received it.
Yeah, he never received it. Otherwise he would have presented it.
Otherwise we would have presented it to you today.
So he didn't receive the letter to get the discount. That's what his statement is.
Okay, that's useful for me to know. And we're just going to confirm that the first payment was made on the 30th of September, about a week or so ago.
Okay. Councillor Valfarage and then Councillor Burchill.
So I just had one question. Whilst Mr. Rana was employed by you, how did you pay him?
How was Mr. Rana paid whilst he was employed at your apprentice?
Beginning of the week, he just worked for some time for the training purpose.
I pay him 400 pound.
And after that money work 20 hours, I pay 1 ,000 pound, transfer his account.
So that's the time he's working.
Only receive two payment.
One is 400 pound, which I give cash for the training purpose.
After that, when I be working, I give 1 ,000 pound, transfer his account.
That's the token.
Yeah.
If I know it's not legal, why should I transfer 1 ,000 pound his account?
Are you saying that you have not received a letter saying that your business was going
to be fined?
As I told you, I receive only green letter which say you are not guilty.
Or otherwise I not receive N later because my company is just at account address.
Otherwise if I know I pay 28 ,000 and we should not come in front of you.
I pay in one time and nothing will be happened as a immigration officer say if Mr. Kapoor
paid 28 ,000 pounds, so we should not come here.
But I don't know anything about that.
I don't know clearly.
I don't know anything about that.
Please could you tell me what is the address of your company?
Is the Yashvela account address near after Anslo?
Is the Yashvela account address?
all my company addresses going there because e -deal every time, HMR when you
letter and all that letters e -deal everything is easy.
And how often do you cheque that there is post coming for you there?
Anything come, anything regarding to me, he just send me on the same date Mr. Kapoor
this kind of letter come and my account is 100 % he show because he's a
responsible person for this company and he also told me I not receive any letter
like this. This is the first letter which he received and sent me on my website, Mr.
Kapoor, this letter has come, do something, otherwise the enforcement will come in your
shop and they can take all your stock. That's the last letter I received. Otherwise, if
I know before, I can clear out the payment as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Kapoor and Mr. Panchow, for answering the questions of the subcommittee.
Are there any questions on clarification from Mr. Sharp, Ms. Cassius?
Yeah, just for Mr Kapoor, you said that he had paid Rana £400, but when questioned,
he told us that he hasn't paid him yet and he was going to pay him £1000 a month from
the 1st of November.
And did you hear that?
So in your interview or the written evidence, it says you hadn't paid, but this evening you have stated that you paid 400 and then 1000.
Already paid on the cash and 1000 paid, I already paid in his account.
1000 I already paid in his account.
So Mr. Panchal, just to say that the officers are saying that that's dishonest because that wasn't what was said in the written documentation.
In the interview you said that, in the interview at the immigration you said that you hadn't
paid him yet that housing problem.
No, because he is due on the same time, he is due on the same time, till the time he
completes his work so I can pay him in one thousand.
Because he is on the trial time I pay four hundred and remaining twenty hours I pay one
thousand in his home.
Okay.
It seems that he had paid him.
I don't know what he said in the interview, but there's obviously a discrepancy between
what's being said this evening and what was said when you interviewed him back in, was
it last day October?
Yeah.
Okay.
Do you have any other questions of clarification?
Yeah.
Can I just ask who Jivi Kapoor is, please?
Can you put?
Jivi Kapoor is my company which is on the businesses running,
which is addressed on my account at address.
OK, so that's his business name, business address,
separate entity from himself.
So Jivi Kapoor is not a physical person?
No.
He's just a company.
Company.
No further questions, but just to sort of make a statement.
You'll have an opportunity to make a statement in closing remarks, but thank you for the
questions of clarification.
I will now invite the attending parties to provide their closing remarks.
You will each have up to five minutes to provide any summary comments before we formally conclude the final part of the meeting.
And I invite you to speak in the following order.
Licence holder, if you would like to provide us with closing remarks, you may do so now.
Thank you very much, ma 'am.
My remarks today would be Mr Kapoor has even cooperated today this evening sitting here
and answered all the questions that you requested.
Mr Kapoor has always been cooperative to the responsible authorities.
Yes, there is a concern that Mr Kapoor became very nervous maybe at the interview and maybe
the questions are conflicting.
But Mr Kapoor has been quite honest in his running and is very disappointed what had happened during his employment of Mr Rana.
And he has said to you that never again he has learnt a lesson and has been running this family business.
It is a repercussion with the family if he has to lose the licence today.
And the family would have a big better way because this is the income from the shop,
it's the family's income with the wife and the children.
So, ma 'am, we are feeling that the revocation of the licence would have a disproportionate
and devastating impact on the family and Mr Kapoor.
And we promise you that it will not happen again.
We have learnt a lesson.
Matters are in place, as you have seen, and matter will be in place.
Mr Kapoor is very, very much concerned about what has happened and will make sure it will
not happen again.
We have put down some proposed conditions, which we are saying a comprehensive staff
register, including right -to -work documentation, would be the new condition added to the licence.
The DPS will ensure all staff involved in recruitment or management complete right to
work compliance training within 28 days.
The DPS will personally review and sign the compliance file every quarter to ensure continuous
adherence.
This was an isolated incident, not reflective of the day -to -day running of the business
or the standards of management demonstrated over many years.
This shop has been here many years.
The absence of objection from all other responsibilities is a strong evidence of the trust and confidence
placed in Mr Kapoor and the premises. So, ma 'am, we feel, we understand that there is a fault that has been created
and you are there under Section Guidance that there should be some sort of punishment.
Although we are saying conditions, we are also asking you a short suspension that you have under the guidance,
which we are asking you would be as a proportionate alternative to revocation.
That's what we're asking today, ma 'am.
Thank you.
Applicant, if you'd like to provide us with closing remarks, you may do so. You have five minutes. Thank you.
Yeah, I'd just like to say first of all that any
correspondence that does get posted out from the Home Office to any address will
go first class recorded delivery signed for so we would have proof that it was
received at any address provided. Going forward the Home Office does not wish to
be involved in unnecessary restricting genuine community services such as
successful pubs, restaurants or shops however there are serious concerns over
the way that this business was being run as earlier discussed. There needs to be
some remedy to that behaviour and a significant way of ensuring that it will
not be repeated. This should also serve a clear message to other businesses who
are fully compliant with relevant legislation that satisfactory action
has been taken. We have outlined our position that the licence holder and
director is ultimately responsible for the illegal working at the premises. We
We've shown through our evidence from the enforcement visit that illegal working occurred
at this premises.
We have no confidence in the licence holder upholding the licencing objectives going forward,
as he has failed to do so in the first place.
We have presented evidence to inform the Committee's considerations and to draw its attention to
the significant risk of prevention of crime and disorder objective being undermined.
In line with the guidance the Home Office is seeking for the subcommittee to consider
revoking the premises licence.
Also to add that all the remedial action
that he's looking to impose is what he should have been
doing legally in the first place.
Thank you.
Now that concludes this part of the public meeting.
The decision reasons and any legal guidance given
during the subcommittee's discussion that has informed
their decision will be confirmed in writing, together with information about any rights
of appeal within five working days.
Members of the Licencing Subcommittee, the Democratic Services Officer and Legal Advisor,
we will now join a separate confidential meeting room to make the decisions on the application.
I'd like to thank everybody for their time this evening.
Travel safely.
Thank you.
Bye -bye.
Thank you.
Thank you.