report of the Chief Officer Elections and Regulatory informed
Members that West Yorkshire Police had served on the Licensing
Authority an application under section 51 of the Licensing Act 2003
for a review of the premises licence in respect of LOCAL, 4 Market
Place, Pudsey, Leeds, LS28 7UA.
attendance at the meeting were:
Blenkhorn – West Yorkshire Police, review
Smith – West Yorkshire Police, review applicant
Mullins – West Yorkshire Trading Standards
- Phillip Gill – West Yorkshire Police,
Patterson – West Yorkshire Police, observing
- Sgt. Chris
Secker – West Yorkshire Police, observing
Simon Seary Pudsey Ward Councillor, representing
Dawn Seary Pudsey Ward Councillor, observing
Jabbar Ahmed Junior – Premises Licence Holder
Ahmed Senior– Premises Licence Holder’s
Abiba – Premises Licence
Hopkins – GT Licensing Consultants, licence holder’s
Potter – GT Licensing Consultants, observing
attendance were two residents called as witnesses by West Yorkshire
Police who wished to remain anonymous. During the meeting they were
called Resident 1 and Resident 2.
noted that supplementary information had been submitted by the
applicant’s representative the day before the meeting, this
had been circulated to all parties. However, West Yorkshire Police
had not had time to review the information and requested time to
consider the information presented. Ten minutes was allowed by the
Licensing Sub Committee for the consideration of the supplementary
Legal Officer outlined the procedure for the meeting and the
Licensing Officer presented the application.
Licensing Sub Committee were informed of the following
application was made on the grounds of the prevention of crime and
disorder and the protection of children from harm. The application
was attached to the report at Appendix A.
support of the application West Yorkshire Police had submitted
additional information which included a number
of statements and a chronology of incidents connected to the
premises. This was appended to the report at Appendix
- Members noted that the premises have had the benefit of a
premises licence since the transitional period in 2005, where an
application to convert the existing Justices’ Off Licence
into a premises licence was received by the Licensing Authority.
The application had been granted as requested, effective from
24th November 2005.
- Members were advised that the applications to both transfer the
premises into the current licence holder’s name and to vary
the licence to specify the current designated premises supervisor,
were received by the Licensing Authority in March 2018. It was
noted that neither application attracted a representation from the
West Yorkshire Police, these were granted with immediate
- A copy
of the premises licence was attached to the submitted report at
- A copy
of the map identifying the location of the premises was attached at
Yorkshire Police have had an interest in the premises for
a number of years due to reports of the
selling of alcohol and tobacco products to underage persons. Test
purchases made at the premises by West Yorkshire Police and West
Yorkshire Trading Standards had failed. It was suspected the
premises licence holder only sold restricted products to underage
persons he knows and by using code words to avoid test purchase
application had not attracted any individual representations from
responsible authorities. However, the Licensing Authority was in
receipt of eight individual representations on behalf of other
persons supporting the review application sought by West Yorkshire
Police. Four parties had requested to remain anonymous throughout
the process due to reprisals. Redacted copies of the
representations were appended to the report at Appendix
- Members were provided with guidance issued under Section 182 of
the Act (Statutory Guidance). This was attached at Appendix F of
the submitted report.
Blenkhorn presented the application from West Yorkshire Police
providing the following points:
- Referring to the supplementary information provided by the
licence holder she was of the view that the petition in support of
the premises was not worth the paper it was written on. She said
that close to the premises were other shops which the elderly could
use. The refusal log did not contain the two failed test purchases
carried out by West Yorkshire Police and West Yorkshire Trading
Standards volunteers on 24th March 2022 and
21st April 2022. It was also noted that the refusal log
jumped dates. The conditions offered by the licence holder were
‘bog standard’ and proof of age was the law. Members
were informed that when footage of CCTV had been requested, the
licence holder had not provided it.
Smith, West Yorkshire Police, informed the Licensing Sub Committee
of the following points:
has been anti-social behaviour around the Pudsey Bus Station making
residents feel intimidated. There is CCTV in the area provided by
Metro and the Leeds Watch Team. It was the view of the Officer that
the youths involved in the anti-social behaviour are involved with
the off licence, with Mr Ahmed seeming friendly towards them. It
was noted that during lockdown things had quietened down. However,
since the restrictions have been lifted anti-social behaviour has
again escalated and some youths seem to have turned against Mr
Ahmed. It was noted that some incidents had been serious with a
youth using threatening behaviour towards the premises licence
holder. The police had spoken to Mr Ahmed but had not been provided
with CCTV footage. When gathering evidence, it was noted that Mr
Ahmed had some of the children’s phone numbers on his phone,
this had raised concerns.
Sub Committee were informed that intelligence gathered during 2019
and 2021 showed that underage persons were buying single
cigarettes, cigarettes, electronic cigarettes and alcohol. It was the view that Mr
Ahmed was acting irresponsibly in selling these products and not
adhering to the licensing objectives. It was the view that Mr Ahmed
had no concern for the young people of Pudsey and that the Pudsey
LOCAL was well known for selling to underage persons.
Mullins attended on behalf of West Yorkshire Trading Standards and
read out a representation from his colleague who was unable to
advised the Sub Committee that Trading Standards had received 16
complaints over an 18-month period which listed the selling of
alcohol, cigarettes and e-cigarettes to
underage persons. It was noted that copies of the letters sent to
Mr Ahmed of the complaints were in the agenda pack at pages 43-55.
He said that Mr Ahmed had been visited and advice had been given to
him in relation to the law and his responsibilities as a licence
- It was
the view of Trading Standards that the review of the premises
licence was necessary as the licence holder was not adhering to the
licensing objectives. Mr Mullins informed the Members that if found
guilty by a court of selling alcohol, cigarettes or nicotine
inhaling products to underage persons could mean a significant fine
Resident 1 provided the following information:
They had been residents of Pudsey for 7 years. They
had reported the premises to the Police and Trading Standards due
to the blatant disregard for the safety of children. Their daughter
had been sick after buying alcohol from the LOCAL. It was well
known by his daughter and her friends that the LOCAL was the place
to buy alcohol if underage. It was noted that the licence holder
had denied this, however, the resident had been able to see where
the alcohol had been bought from his daughter’s bank
Resident 2 provided the following information:
Her daughter had been served vape products. When
asked how she had got them she had said the LOCAL and that Mr Ahmed
was known as ‘boss man’, you only need to ask for him
and you can get cigarettes and alcohol. The resident went on to say
that she had observed a gang of teenagers under the age of 18 with
a bottle of alcohol bought at the LOCAL. An old lady passing by had
told her she was scared to walk round Pudsey with all the teenagers
surrounding the shop.
resident had been due to attend but was unable to do so, as she was
ill. Sarah Blenkhorn explained to the Licensing Sub Committee that
this resident had received a phone call telling her that her
daughter was drunk and had banged her head. Her daughter was in
year 10 and told them she had bought vodka from the LOCAL calling
the man at the shop ‘boss man’. Her daughter had said
it was easy to get served and joked that an 8
year old could get served there.
Councillor Simon Seary attended on behalf of two residents. He
said that there was anti- social behaviour in this area. He said
that parents had started to voice concerns in 2018, in relation to
the premises, as it was becoming well known for selling vaping
products and alcohol to underage persons.
Member of the Sub Committee asked West Yorkshire Police what they
would like to see happen to the premises. West Yorkshire Police
said they wanted the licence revoked.
Hopkins, the licence holder’s representative addressed the
Sub Committee providing the following information:
Mr Ahmed senior had owned the premises since 2018
and had held a personal licence since 2005.
Mr Ahmed junior had gained his personal licence in
2006 and had worked in the family business for 15 years.
There had been no previous issues with the police or
other responsible authorities.
The LOCAL had received a straight conversion from a
Justice’s licence during the transitional period in 2005. Mr
Ahmed had offered a number of conditions should the Sub Committee
be minded to modify the licence,
Staff training to be reviewed every three
He was of the view that the allegations were untrue
and there were no breaches of the law, it was all
It had been noted that the test purchases undertaken
Referring to the request for CCTV footage, Mr Ahmed
had explained that it had not been working. It was noted that there
was no condition on the licence, so therefore he had not breached
the law. However, he was now offering CCTV as one of the conditions
to be placed on the premises licence.
He said that no money had been seen changing hands
for alcohol between the staff and underage persons.
He agreed with the residents that children needed
protection. Mr Hopkins informed the Sub Committee that he had 18
years on the job, and in his experience, children did not reveal
the true source of where they had purchased products from, to
protect their source. He said in relation to the children hanging
around the shop, children always hang around shops as they have
nowhere else to go.
Mr Hopkins said that the name ‘boss man’
was not a unique name and when he had asked about the code name, Mr
Ahmed had no idea what he was talking about.
In relation to the CCTV footage, Mr Ahmed had
apologised for it not working. However, it had been noted that
there was CCTV provided by the Council around the bus station, but
this had not been checked.
He said that this was the business for two families
and that Mr Ahmed junior had two children of his own.
Ahmed senior addressed the Sub Committee and provided the following
said that he had run a few businesses over a 30
year period. He was of the view that the allegations against
him were false and racist.
- He had
submitted a petition signed by local people who wanted to keep the
said that he and his family worked seven days a week, he has held a
licence for fifteen years and felt part of the community, although
he was aware that some people are jealous of him and his
of the staff he employs in the shop are ladies and he has employed
12 staff in the years that he has had the business. However, most
of the time it is family who work in the shop.
Ahmed spoke of his shock at how the police were against him as he
always asked for I.D. when selling alcohol and cigarettes. He said
that the children gathered outside the shop after school whilst
waiting for their buses. He said that the children are only allowed
two at a time in the shop. He has requested assistance from the
police to remove the children.
Ahmed junior addressed the Sub Committee providing the following
the children come out of school and are waiting for buses they are
smoking vapes and cigarettes and so people assume that it is his
shop selling the products to them. He said that in this the
21st century kids can get whatever they
said that he did not serve children and the test purchases by the
Police and Trading Standards had failed.
said that the reference to ‘boss man’ was a sign of
respect and he was often called this by elderly residents as well
informed the Members that he was running a £500,000 business,
so would not be risking his licence to sell vapes, cigarettes or
alcohol to children.
said that he worked hard in the shop and followed the law as best
he could. He was of the view that parents had a duty to look after
their children and the police had a duty to stop children gathering
outside his shop.
Ahmed said that the children gathered around the bus station as
there was nowhere else for them to go.
said that having a premises licence was important to him and his
family and he valued his licence.
Hopkins spoke to the Licensing Sub Committee saying that all the
evidence presented was just hearsay. He hoped that the Sub
Committee had heard the passion with which his clients had spoken
about their business.
direct response to questions from the Members the Licensing Sub
Committee were provided with further information:
requested to show CCTV footage they had done so, unfortunately on
some occasions the request could not be granted as the CCTV had not
Ahmed said that he was only aware of receiving 1 or 2 letters from
denied selling vaping products when approached by parents as it was
his view that it could have been bought at any of the shops in the
said that there had been a few incidents that they had not reported
to the Police such as stealing of chocolates and sweets. However,
they had reported a serious incident when his father had been
threatened by a youth with a knife. Nothing had happened as the
youth was under 15 years old.
Ahmed said that he does speak to the Community Police Officers and
has on occasions asked them and other residents to ask the children
to move away from the shop.
- Members were advised that Mr Ahmed had trained his staff, but as
it was previously a Justice’s Licence this had not been part
of his conditions. He was now offering this as part of new
conditions to the premises licence.
asked why Mr Ahmed had the numbers of children on his phone his
response was that he had given the number to one person, and they
had passed it on. He said he was also followed on social
Blenkhorn summed up by saying:
24th March 2022, 2 volunteers had carried out test
purchases one being told to come back 10 minutes later. The test
purchases had not been entered into the refusal
only were the statements from parents
evidence of the issues at the LOCAL there was also the bank
transactions of the young people.
relation to the children hanging around the outside of the premises
no other shops surrounding the LOCAL, have issues with children
hanging around outside.
police were of the view that if a premises sells enough vaping
products the business would make a profit.
signage saying that only 2 teenagers allowed in shop is a new
- A number of residents, including parents had come forward to support the
review application of the Police.
Police requested Members to take into consideration:
chronology table listing dates and incidents
reports of the parents
submitted report on the effects of alcohol and cigarettes on
Stronger Community Plan 2025
On A Page 2020-25 – Police
City Council Licensing Policy
Police were of the view that the premises licence holder had no
regard for the protection of children from harm and he had been
reluctant to assist the Police.
Licensing Sub Committee considered all the information provided to
them and presented at the meeting.
RESOLVED - To revoke the premises