Red Coffee Box Bid For Trading Licence Refused

Owner 'continued to trade despite having not applied for a licence'


A barista at the phone coffee kiosk

Participate

Sign up for our weekly Chiswick newsletter

Comment on this story on the

The Red Coffee Box kiosk on the corner of Chiswick High Road and Town Hall Avenue has been refused a street trading licence by Hounslow Council.

The Council had received nine representations against the owner, Mr. Mustapha Mehmet's application, for a temporary street trading licence for the purposes of placing a table and chairs on the pavement on the High Road. A panel hearing of the Licensing Authority heard that he had been operating the coffee kiosk without a licence and a number of unpaid fines had been issued.

Six complaints were made by residents and local businesses and one was from a Ward Councillor. The two other representations were from the Licensing Authority and Hounslow Highways who claimed the applicant, Mr. Mehmet, had shown a disregard for the law relating to trading.

The residents and local businesses claimed that the applicant was trading before any application had been submitted, before and during the 28 day consultation period. Concerns were raised about the food hygiene at the premises, the risk to public health and safety due to questions over hygiene, the disposal of rubbish, and the presence of mice and pigeons in the area.

The owner of a juice bar said it was unfair that Mr. Mehmet was trading without a licence. Cllr Joanna Biddolph said that there were a number of businesses struggling in the area and that she did not consider the Premises was operating in a way she would expect.

The Licensing Authority’s representative, Mr. Richards, stated that the Applicant had, when operating the business under a different business called Fresh Bites London Limited, been issued with three Fixed Penalty Notices (“FPNs”) for street trading without a licence on 24 July 2018, 27 July 2018 and 1 August 2018. All the FPNs were still outstanding as at the time of the hearing.

He had visited the kiosk in July and spoken to a young woman working there, who called Mr. Mehmet, who had told the inspector that if he was to issue an FPN it should be in the name of Fresh Bites London Ltd. That was the name of the applicant’s company that had made a previous application for trading involving a tri-cycle placed on the pavement selling ice cream. Mr Richards made two further visits to the premises and issued two further FPNs because trading was still underway.

It was noted that the company name on the current application was Red Coffee Box, but Mr Richards stated that the Applicant was involved in both this company and Fresh Bites London Ltd.

Mr Mehmet said that he had the idea to convert the phone box about six months previously. He said that before he began trading he informed the Council’s Street Trading Team that he was converting the phone box into a coffee shop, so the Council knew what was going on. He said that he had hygiene certificates and had sent these to the Council.

He did not think that he was obstructing the highway and did not agree with the measurements put forward by the objectors as to the width of the highway when his business was in operation. He stated that there was more space than required by the Council at that location with the table present. He also believed that the presence of his business was a positive as he alleged it was preventing people congregating in that area who might otherwise use it for drinking alcohol or taking drugs.

In reply to questions from the Licensing Panel, Mr. Mehmet said that he was aware that street trading required a licence. When asked why he did not apply for this and why he did not pay the FPNs he replied that he could pay these but was not doing so as he felt he was being blackmailed by the Council.

He was then asked by the Panel if he had sought to contest the FPNs regardless of how he felt about the situation. Mr. Mehmet said he did not object as the FPN was not in his name and it had been issued in the name of his previous application.

The Panel noted that the Applicant was aware of the need for a street trading licence, having previously applied for one as part of Fresh Bites London Ltd and his previous experience generally, but failed to apply for one for the Premises despite trading during this same time.

There was also a discussion as to whether the landowner, (though there was no clarity as to who this might be) had given permission for the trading to take place.

In view of the Applicant’s failure to produce evidence of any land owner’s consent to trade from the land and the Applicant’s conduct in continuing to trade without a licence despite being aware of the need to do so, and the failure to pay the FPNs, the Panel did not consider it fit to grant the Applicant a Temporary Street Trading Licence.

October 5, 2018



Bookmark and Share