Restaurant boss vows to fight decision to revoke licence over illegal work claims

A restaurant owner in Blackpool has vowed to appeal over a decision to revoke his premises licence over illegal worker claims.

The Akash Tandoori restaurant on Topping Street is a popular and long-established eatery in the town which has been running for many years.

But the Home Office says that when members of its North West Immigration Compliance Enforcement (ICE) team visited the restaurant, they found two men on the premises who were working there illegally.

The Government department requested that Blackpool’s licensing committee consider revoking Akash’s premises license over its assertions that the two males were working in breach of their conditions or restrictions.

The case to revoke the licence was put to Blackpool’s licensing committee on June 8.

Although Akash boss Iqbal Nooree put his own case to the committee, councillors agreed to revoke the license.

Now Mr Noree has vowed to appeal against the decision and says he will “fight it all the way.”

A restaurant can sell food without a premises licence, but only if it does not serve hot food or drinks between 11pm and 5am and does not sell alcohol.

Mr Noori says this will have a serious impact on his business and he believes the judgement is unfair.

He said after the meeting: “I am just  trying to run a business, provide a service for people in Blackpool and provide for my family.

“I disagree with what was said in the meeting and I will fight this all the way. We were treated like animals in a cold and heartless way.

“The people I employed are still in Blackpool, still working in other places, they haven’t been deported.

“Why don’t the people who are ordering this go after drug dealers and murders? I have been in business in Blackpool for 32 years and people know me well. I feel this is really unfair and of course it will affect my business.”

Immigration Officer Sasha Knowles attended the meeting to present the case on behalf of the Home Office and gave an overview of the regulations around the prevention of illegal working. She outlined the potential exploitation implications for workers and the unfair competitive advantage gained by businesses employing staff without the correct right to work.

She said that during the course of the visit it was established that both workers were paid in cash, with the rate equating to less than the minimum wage without any tax or National Insurance contributions having been paid.

The officer said this therefore deprived the UK economy of tax revenue.

She also said one of the workers also stated that they received food as part of their remuneration.

Mr Noori attended the hearing accompanied by his wife and a family friend.

Minutes of the meeting said he explained that he had checked the biometric identity cards of each individual prior to their employment commencing, which stated that work was permitted, although no further online checks had been completed to determine the type of work allowed.

Mr Nooree stated that he had never knowingly employed illegal workers and felt he had been misled by his employees as to the type of work they had told him was permitted under the terms of their visas.

He also disputed the level of wages reported to have been paid, stating that his accountant could demonstrate formal payroll arrangements, although no evidence had been seen by the Home Office or was provided to the Panel.

Mr Noreee apologised for the mistake which he explained was an oversight due to being unfamiliar with the need to undertake online “right to work” status checks. He also pointed to his many years’ experience in the restaurant industry and the financial importance of retaining the licence to support his family and other employees.

Concluding the hearing, the panel noted the licence holder’s comments, however concerns were expressed at the alleged lack of formal payroll arrangements with no evidence having been provided to demonstrate that workers were being paid at an appropriate rate or with the correct tax and National Insurance contributions.

The minutes stated: “In the Panel’s opinion, strong action needed to be taken in instances of illegal working and although it noted the licence holder’s representations, it was not confident that such instances would not reoccur at the premises.

“Having taken into account the guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act it therefore decided, on balance, to revoke the licence on the grounds of prevention of crime and disorder, specifically the prevention of illegal working in licensed premises.”