Agenda item - Application for Review of a Premises Licence- Under the Gambling Act 2005, Metrobet Bookmakers Ltd, 56 Boundary Road, Hove

Report of the Head of Regulatory Services (copy attached).

11.1    The Panel considered a report of the Director of Public Health in relation to a review of a premise licence under the Gambling Act 2005 for Metrobet Bookmakers Ltd, 56 Boundary Road Hove. In attendance were Mark Savage Brookes on behalf of the Licensing Authority; Andy Issacs from the Gambling Commission, George Moakes from Roar Betting and Andrew Woods the legal representative for the operator.

 

            Introduction from the Licensing Officer

 

11.2    The Senior Licensing Officer introduced the report and stated that the hearing was for a review of the Betting Premises Licence for Metrobet, 56 Boundary Road brought under the Gambling Act 2005. The Licensing Authority had called for the review under the Protecting Children gambling objective due to two failed test purchases at the premises. One representation had been received from the Gambling Commission supporting the review application which sought to add additional conditions to the licence or other actions that the Panel felt to be appropriate. Supplementary information had also been provided by the premises prior to the hearing.

 

11.3      During this review hearing the licensing authority must: consider the application made in accordance with Section 200 and consider any relevant representations. Reference was made to guidance that the purpose of the review would be to determine whether the licensing authority should take any action in relation to the licence.  If action were justified, the options were to:

 

(a)        Add, remove or amend a licence condition imposed by the licensing authority

(b)       Exclude a default condition imposed by the Secretary of State (relating to, for example,             opening hours) or remove or amend such an exclusion

(c)        Suspend the premises licence for a period not exceeding three months

            (d)       Revoke the premises licence.

 

11.4    In determining what action, if any, should be taken following a review the Licensing Authority must have regard to the principles set out in section 153 of the Act:

 

                   (a)       In accordance with any relevant Code of Practice issued by the                   Gambling Commission,

(b)       In accordance with any relevant guidance issued by the Gambling Commission,

                   (c)        Reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives, and

                   (d)       In accordance with the Authority’s Licensing Policy.

 

11.5      If the Panel were minded to add additional conditions to the licence Gambling Commission Guidance stated that any conditions imposed by the Licensing Authority must be proportionate to the circumstances which they are seeking to address.

 

Representation from the Applicant

 

11.6      The Licensing Officer, Mark Savage-Brookes, gave a representation on behalf of the Licensing Authority as the applicant. He drew attention to the representation within the report and highlighted that the premises had failed a test purchase by allowing an underage person to gamble on a machine. Following the failure a visit had been made to the premises and the operations manager was aware of the authority’s intention to retest. The premises then failed the second test, and a review was then submitted on 30 October 2014.

 

11.7      In response to Councillor Cobb it was explained that the Gambling Commission had supported the authority when undertaking the test purchases, and the young people used were considered to appear ‘underage’.

 

11.8      In response to queries from Councillor Simson it was explained the age challenge policy was set out in the operational licence. Following the second test purchase and the submission of the review request it was believed that the premises was now under a new management contract; the licence was in the name of ‘Metrobet’ and the premises was now managed by ‘Roar Betting’. In the period up the review hearing there had been meetings with the new management and the Licensing Authority; there had also been positive conversations since the premises had instructed counsel.

 

11.9      In response to Councillor Marsh it was explained by the Licensing Officer that the current configuration would allow young people to enter the premises and the use the machines near the door with minimal interaction with the staff.

 

11.10   At this point the Legal Advisor suggested it would be useful for the Panel if the Licensing Officer expressed any views on the conditions proposed by the operators. In response the Licensing Officer noted they were generally supported by there were some areas they could be strengthened. In relation to the use of a Maglock it was currently proposed that this be used on a risk assessed basis; however, the Licensing Authority was keen to ensure it would help prevent children from entering the premises. The Licensing Officer noted the conditions that had been proposed and highlighted that the premises had suggested they would also undertake their own test purchasing; the Licensing Authority had also suggested the installation of a door chime and the relocation of the gaming machines that were at the front of the premises; however, instead of moving these a screen had been placed to prevent them being visible from outside of the premises.

 

11.11   Councillor Simson pursued the issues of the Maglock further and it was explained by the Licensing Officer that he had suggested it be in use between 1500 and 1700 hours to deter children from entering the premises.

 

11.12   It was clarified for Councillor Marsh that screen installed at the front of the premises screened the machines from the street, but did not comply with the suggestion of placing them beyond the service counter.

 

Representation from Responsible Authorities

 

11.13   Andy Isaacs addressed the Panel on behalf of the Gambling Commission and stated that operators were subject to duel regulation, and highlighted the three objectives set out in the Gambling Act 2005. The third objective related to the protected of young, vulnerable people, and the licence should impose conditions to manage this. The Gambling Commission had become involved when it was clear that the procedures had not sufficiently upheld that objective, and there was no evidence that the premises were actively testing their own procedures. The Gambling Commission encouraged and supported regular action by the Licensing Authority and, as such, had put in a representation in support of the application.

 

11.14   In response to Councillor Simson it was explained that it was perfectly normal for conditions that were mandatory in the licence from the Gambling Commission to also appear in the licence from the Local Authority – the premises must satisfy both authorities that they had sufficient measures in place.

 

11.15   Councillor Marsh asked for the position of the Gambling Commission in relation the additional conditions proposed by the Licensing Officer – the installation of a door chime and the relocation of the gaming machines at the front of the premises. In response it was explained that both of these measures would be useful; however, it was noted that there could be some commercial impact with more prescriptive use of the Maglock.

 

Representation from the Licence Holder

 

11.16   Mr Andrew Wood gave a representation on behalf of the licence holder. He stated that the conditions proposed by the licence holder went over and above the necessary provision to uphold the objectives of the Gambling Act, and these proposals were also specific to this premises – the premises would accept further conditions if the Panel were fully of the view they were proportionate. The two failed test purchases were unacceptable, and it was accepted that the young people should have been challenged – since the second failure this had been looked at in some detail. The premises had not sought to blame the staff who had failed to request ID, but felt this was a failure of the premises, at an operations level, to provide proper training and support to allow confident to challenge. This had led to the appointment of ‘Roar Betting’ to manage this and four other premises; the previous manager had also been made redundant.

 

11.17   It was explained that Mr George Moakes was now responsible for the operational management of the premises; he had 37 years of experience in the industry, and was very clear on the social responsibility codes. The operators had looked careful at the why the premises had failed the two test purchases and responded with additional measures. There were now daily reminder on the premises’ computer systems that would ‘flash up’ for staff on matters to do with age challenging; Mr Moakes now undertook weekly visits and the team were now keeping challenge records. Staff were now vigilant for underage customers, and the operators were of the view that moving the machines form the front of the premises would not have any impact as staff were now being routinely challenged when entering the premises – this was also easier as the premises was small.

 

11.18   It was note that there were no national issues in relation to young people trying to access gambling venues, and it was considered that the use of the screens at the front of the premises would be a sufficient deterrent. All premises operated by ‘Roar Betting’ were fitted with Maglock. The use of Maglocks was focused on preventing large groups, and they had a greater application in London for crime and security reasons. It was considered that the permanent use of them could seriously harm the business as customers would not want to have to press a buzzer and wait for admission.

 

11.19   The types of signs and notices that had been highlighted in the additional materials had been put up in the premises and staff training had taken place using guidance from the Gambling Commission – there would also be an ongoing programme of refresher training for staff. There were proposals to use an external company to undertake age related checks, and all of these matters would be recorded in the incident book. The operators were of the view that the measures proposed were proportionate, and they did not feel the installation of a buzzer would be necessary if the staff were vigilant.

 

11.20   In response to Councillor Marsh the new management arrangements were outlined, and it was confirmed Mr Moakes was the Operational Manager for 5 premises. It would be the responsibility of Mr Moakes to ensure all staff were trained. There were currently two staff at the premises and both were managers.

 

11.21   In response to Councillor Simson it was explained that the front door to the premises was kept closed to regulate the temperature, and therefore customers had to make a very conscious decision to open the door and enter the premises. There was no policy on whether the door should be closed or not. In response to a further query the layout of the premises was explained, and the usual number of customers was between 5 and 10.

 

11.22   In response to Mr Isaacs it was explained that the premises was largely single operated by one of the managers.

 

11.23   Councillor Marsh had query about how the single member of staff would be able to check customers entering if, for example, they were busy serving. In response it was explained that the manager would be easily aware and look up when customers entered the premises; they would also be trained to work in this manner.

 

11.24   In response to the Licensing Officer it was explained that staff were routinely challenging customers now; if a customer were to come in and use the gaming machine at the front then the member of staff would feel confident to challenge them.

 

Summaries

 

11.25   The Senior Licensing Officer stated that the Panel had heard from all the parties present regarding the Review brought by the Licensing Authority on the bases that the objective of protecting children had been undermined. The Panel must have regard to: the application made in accordance with Section 20 and any relevant representations including those from the premises. In determining what action, if any, should be taken following a review the Licensing Authority must have regard to the principles set out in section 153 of the Act:

 

(a)       In accordance with any relevant Code of Practice issued by the       Gambling Commission,

(b)       In accordance with any relevant guidance issued by the Gambling Commission,

            (c)        Reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives, and

(d)       In accordance with the Authority’s Licensing Policy.

 

11.26   The purpose of the review would be to determine if any action should be taken in relation to the licence. If action was justified the options were to:

 

(a)        Add, remove or amend a licence condition imposed by the licensing authority

(b)       Exclude a default condition imposed by the Secretary of State (relating to, for example,             opening hours) or remove or amend such an exclusion

(c)        Suspend the premises licence for a period not exceeding three months

            (d)       Revoke the premises licence.

 

11.27   Once the review had been completed the Licensing Authority must as soon as possible:

·                notify its decision to:

·                the licence holder

·                the applicant for review (if any)

·                the Commission

·                any person who made representations

·                the chief officer of police

·                HM Revenue and Customs.

 

Parties could appeal the decision of the Licensing Authority.

 

11.28   The Licensing Officer stated that he was pleased with how responsive the premises had been, and felt they had taken the matter very seriously. He noted conditions had been agreed in principle, and asked the Panel to carefully consider the wording.

 

11.29   Mr Woods noted the positive response of the premises, and the robust action to prevent this happening again.

 

11.30   At 1121 hours the Panel retired to make their decision and reconvened at 1200 hours to deliver this.

 

11.31   RESOLVED: The decision of the Panel was as follow:

 

“The licensing authority has decided to take the following action as a result of the review:

Add the following conditions to the premises licence under Section 169: 

 

1.         CCTV to be installed at the Premises which covers all of the Licensed area and images of which will be retained for 28 days and made available to a Police officer or Licensing Officer upon request.

2.         A Maglock will be installed at the Premises. The use of which will be Risk Assessed by the Premises Licence Holder. The risk assessment will cover all 3 licensing objectives.

3.         Challenge 25 will be operated at the Premises.

4.         Prominent Signage and Notices will be displayed showing that the Premises operate ‘Challenge 25’.

5.         Prominent Gam Care Documentation will be displayed at the Premises.

6.         All staff will be trained on the ABB Training Guide and Workbook or similar Training Policy. All training to be recorded and made available to licensing officers upon request.

7.         Refresher Training of Staff will take place and be recorded and made available to licensing officers upon request.

8.         ABB approved ID Test Purchasing will take place at the Premises, every 3 months for the first 12 months and thereafter at regular intervals with records maintained and made available to the Licensing Officers upon request.

9.         An incident book will be maintained at the premises which will record all incidents of refusals and ID challenges and will be made available to a licensing officer or police officer upon request.

 

In addition, the licensee holder has offered to move the machines further away from the door and the panel request this be carried out as soon as possible.

Advisory: the Panel request that the licensee investigates the possibility of  having a simple door alert attached to the front door as part of their alarm system in order that staff are fully aware of everyone entering the premises.

The Panel would request that the requirement to keep the front door closed at all times is added to the premises operating procedures if not there already.

 

The reasons for the licensing authority’s decision are as follows:

 

The Panel considered the application for review of the premises licence and had regard to the relevant licensing codes, objectives and guidance and considered all the submissions made at the hearing. The Panel took into consideration the level of co-operation between the licensee, the licensing authority and the gambling commission, and also the fact that a new operational management structure has been put in place. The Panel is satisfied that the above conditions which were proposed by the licensee and discussed with the licensing authority will promote the licensing objective of protecting children from being harmed or exploited by gambling. The Panel considers that the action taken is a proportionate response to the serious failure of practice which prompted the review.”