A shop in Fordham has had its licence revoked after councillors said it showed a ‘culture of disregard for complying with UK law’. 

East Cambridgeshire District Council made the decision to revoke the licence for the Londis shop, in Carter Street, after a review was requested by the Home Office. 

The licence, held by ARUN Capital Ltd, allowed the store to sell alcohol. 

The Home Office had called for the licence to be reviewed after it claimed a staff member was found working at the shop illegally. 

However, a barrister representing the licence holder said the individual had not been an illegal worker, but accepted they had at times worked over the hours their visa allowed. 

A meeting of the district council’s licensing (statutory) sub-committee last week (November 24), heard that on May 25, immigration enforcement officers from the Home Office had visited the shop after receiving information of potential illegal workers. 

Councillors were told that one staff member, a 20-year-old Indian national, was found to be working longer than his student visa allowed him to. 

The man had a student visa to study computing at Bournemouth University. The visa restricted the number of hours he could work during term time to 20 hours a week. 

The Home Office representative said the man had told officers that he had worked at the shop for 18 months, had been working around 25 to 30 hours a week, and was being paid £8 an hour in cash. 

They said he also admitted that he had “given up his studies” and had said his “sole purpose being here in the UK was to work”. 

The representative said: “Clearly it was not only off the books, but also well below the minimum or living wage.” 

Concerns were also raised by the Home Office about alcohol being stored on the stairs, and gas canisters being stored in a room above the shop. 

They said the Home Office did not want to see the closure of community services and said it recognised this was a “limited breach”. 

They also confirmed that the Home Office had decided not to pursue a penalty against the employer. 

However, they suggested the “most serious aspect” was not the employment breach, but was the fact that the person had been paid below the minimum wage. 

They said: “How do you ensure such behaviour won’t happen again?” 

The barrister representing the licence holder said they refuted the claims that the man was working there illegally, or that he was being paid off the books. 

He said the company accepted mistakes had been made, but asked for no further action to be taken on this occasion. 

The designated premises supervisor for the shop, Sakthivel Vijithran, also spoke to councillors at the meeting. 

He said the man in question no longer worked at the shop, and said he had not been working there for the 18 months that had been claimed. 

Mr Vijithran said he had physically checked the man’s right to work documents, but admitted he had not checked through an online portal as required, and had not confirmed the man’s term time dates with the university. 

Mr Vijithran also refuted claims the man was paid below the minimum wage and said the £8 an hour was the “net pay”. 

He said the man had been renting a room above the shop for £300 a month, which he said he had deducted from the man’s wages. 

He said he had also removed money for tax, but said he had been waiting for the employee to receive a National Insurance number and tax code. 

Mr Vijithran added that other employees were paid in cash and stressed that the correct tax was paid. 

He also said the alcohol and gas canisters were no longer kept where immigration officers had found them. 

The barrister highlighted that the fire service had not raised any fire safety concerns in relation to the application. 

He said: “[The licence holder] accepts that they have made mistakes in the sense that they employed this man during term time for more than 20 hours per week. 

“I would like to draw attention that there has been no input from the fire brigade about any fire safety issues arising at these premises; the only other contribution to this review has been my client’s landlord, who wrote a support letter. 

“[The man] was not an illegal worker, mistakes were made about allowing him to work more than 20 hours per week in term time. 

“These premises have been there for a long time with no suggestion of any other wider concerns about these premises. 

“I would urge you to take no further action, Mr Vijithran here has taken on board the points made by the Home Office and I am sure has listened carefully today to what you have said as well. 

“I would ask you to take no further action on this occasion.” 

This week the district council announced it would be revoking the shop’s licence following the hearing. 

In the decision notice the authority said the licence holder had failed to uphold the licensing objective to prevent crime and disorder, as it had failed to follow the required right to work checks. 

The authority said the shop failed to “follow up basic activities” such as checking the university term dates as required by Home Office guidance. 

It also said: “Oral evidence given at the hearing raised considerable concern that the licence holder failed to follow appropriate HMRC rules and regulations to ensure the correct payment of tax, the level of salary provided to a particular employee, National Insurance deductions and the correct keeping of records in relation to such matters. 

“This evidence, in addition to that regarding the employment of a potentially illegal worker, pointed to a culture of a disregard for legislation and the need to comply with UK law.” 

The licence holder can appeal the district council’s decision to revoke the licence within 21 days of being notified of the decision.