Archived Topic
Topic ID 1570
25/05/2006 by PCSO Hutchin
Police progress regarding Bengeo underage drinkers
Firstly I would like to thank everyone for any information that has been provided to us about the under aged drinking problem at Holy Trinity Church. Following the execution of a number of operations we have confiscated alcohol from under aged drinkers and issued a fixed penalty notice to a member of staff at Bengeo Food and Wine for selling alcohol to persons under 18 years old.
Feedback from the local residents has been positive and it seems that we have made a significant impact to reduce the problem. The police have now applied to have the licence of Bengeo Food and Wine reviewed by the Licensing Authority at East Herts District Council. If you have any information relating to this matter please contact either myself or Martin Swift. Contact details are as follows:
Alison Hutchin (PCSO) [email protected] or 01992 533535
Martin Swift (Ward Constable) [email protected] or 01992 533414
Thank you once again for your help,
Alison Hutchin
0 replies
Archived Replies
Reply ID 19286
26/05/2006 by Bengeobabe
Hi Alison
you do know that the above shop has been taken over by new owners?
Reply ID 19287
26/05/2006 by Steve
I think it might help if you mentioned WHEN it was taken over by new owners
Reply ID 19292
26/05/2006 by Bengeobabe
1 maybe 2 weeks ago??
Reply ID 19359
01/06/2006 by PCSO Hutchin
Yes we are aware of the change in owner. Thanks, Alison
Reply ID 21448
25/07/2006 by PCSO Hutchin
UPDATE - Bengeo Stores on Bengeo Street
The above store has had its license to sell alcohol reviewed. Bengeo Stores has received a 3 month ban of their license and therefore are not allowed to sell or display alcohol until the middle of October.
Reply ID 21451
25/07/2006 by Steve
Many thanks for updating us.
Reply ID 21458
25/07/2006 by buzz
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
Many thanks for updating us.
Did anyone else notice the disgraceful misreporting in the Mercury? First of all, the shop was named as "Bengeo Food & Wine" and then located in "Bengeo High Street" We'd be better off buying "The Sun" for factual reporting
Reply ID 21464
25/07/2006 by ~Sarah~
quote:
Originally posted by buzz
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
Many thanks for updating us.
Did anyone else notice the disgraceful misreporting in the Mercury? First of all, the shop was named as "Bengeo Food & Wine" and then located in "Bengeo High Street" We'd be better off buying "The Sun" for factual reporting
Yes I noticed that! The Mercury never fails to astound me with it's shoddy reporting! It was so bad infact I thought they were talking about another shop in Bengeo that I have never heard of![;)]
Anyway yes thanks for the update [:)]
Reply ID 21498
25/07/2006 by Andrew
Interesting to see the Mercury boards outside the co-op (with off licence) in Bengeo St the week "Bengeo off licence shut down", a completely different one outside CS Stores with no mention of their off licence closure. Indeed the Mercury made it read as if the whole shop was being closed.
Reply ID 21543
25/07/2006 by Bengeobabe
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew
Interesting to see the Mercury boards outside the co-op (with off licence) in Bengeo St the week "Bengeo off licence shut down", a completely different one outside CS Stores with no mention of their off licence closure. Indeed the Mercury made it read as if the whole shop was being closed.
The mercury boards outside CS stores did display the "Bengeo off licence shut down" for 24 hrs which i found most amusing! they then must have realised the error of their ways..!![:D][:D][:D]
Reply ID 21545
25/07/2006 by burmilla_turbo
The mercury, as with most newspapers, even if they have all the facts to the letter will bend the truth, exagerate, and somtimes blow things out of all proportion just to make the articles appear more interesting.
I'm guessing thats what happened here.
Reply ID 22093
28/07/2006 by Wrapper
Spot on Burmilla. Somebody very close to me has complained about their style of journalism and they responded my stating they want to be more like the popular press and less like the town newspaper we used to know.
Reply ID 22925
05/08/2006 by shunt
Has it occurred to anyone else that the current owners of the shop, who are struggling to survive with the ban, did not commit the offence, but bought the business in good faith from those that did? The withdrawal of the license is innappropriate action by police and licensing commitee in this case. I hope they survive and we don't lose another struggling store.
Reply ID 22958
07/08/2006 by Ewoowar
It says a lot that they are struggling to survive with the ban.
Reply ID 22963
07/08/2006 by Joby
Why have the premises been punished (and as a result, the subsequent owners) rather than the licensee who committed the actual offence?
Reply ID 22979
07/08/2006 by Rooster
quote:
Originally posted by Joby
Why have the premises been punished (and as a result, the subsequent owners) rather than the licensee who committed the actual offence?
Probably because there are now two types of licence. A premises licence which obviously covers the premises itself, and a personal licence which the purveyor of alcohol holds. There is also a Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) whose has overall responsiblity for the day to day running of the business. Any "mishaps" should lay firmly on his/her shoulders I would have thought. It looks to me like the premises licence has been revoked rather than anything else. But who knows these days what the authorities deem necessary.
Reply ID 23031
08/08/2006 by PCSO Hutchin
Hopefully this will clarify from point regarding your concerns.
The new licensee is not the owner. He is in charge of the day to day running of the shop but it is owned and overseen by the Designated Premises Supervisor (this person is the same person who was in charge when the offence was committed). The new licencee is looking to buy the premises and become the DPS. He should have been made aware by the old DPS of the potential review. If not then this is something he would have to take up civilly through a solicitor. The person who has been "punished" is the DPS at the time of the offence not the new person running the shop. I hope this makes sense.
Reply ID 23057
08/08/2006 by shunt
Thank you for the clarification. Makes perfect sense, but still unfortunate for the current couple, who I get the impression did not know, but how that affects them, depends if they have a stake in the business. My own experience is of being an on-license holder of premises for which I was personally responsible or owned. This kind of distant licensing is a bit alien. Even under the old system, I once found myself standing up for the innocence of a building in court, having been refused a change to a licence on the grounds of a an incident which occurrred whilst it was with the previous licensee and owners, so mine was not an unreasonable assumption, if brought about by being a bit out of date.
Reply ID 23210
10/08/2006 by shunt
Also, if the old DPS is not trading and has simply rented the premises then he has no need of his licence and therefore has recieved no punishment. The new couple (still waiting for their application) are not only unable to trade now, but tarred by implication when they are eventualy allowed to trade again. I hope the commitee and the police will do everything in their power to speed a solution to this. After all, the public interest was served when the previous trader fled the premises.
19 replies