A beloved cafe on Chiswick High Road saw its licence revoked after immigration officers discovered one of the workers was there illegally.
Hothouse Cafe received an outpouring of support from locals and customers in the weeks leading up to its hearing which would see it ultimately lose its licence.
More than 20 letters were sent to Hounslow Council to object to the licencing review, citing the cafe as an important asset to the community with “impeccable” customer service, which was vital for social groups in the area.
The licence holder Mr Samy Amer was also initially supported by councillor Joanna Biddolph, but she would later withdraw her support after fully reviewing the details of the case.
The UK immigration office reported to the review panel that there had been two occasions when officers had discovered illegal migrants working in the cafe.
The first occasion was in 2019 when four illegal workers were found to be working at the premises.
A further illegal worker was found to be working at the premises on a separate visit in 2023.
The licence holder was fined £40,000 in 2019 and £15,000 following the 2023 visit – which he said had almost led to financial ruin and required him to remortgage his house to pay.
The immigration services told the panel that on the second occasion, Mr Amer had become aggressive and animated in an attempt to impede its investigation.
However, this was refuted by the owner who said both in his statement and through his representation at the hearing that he had captured video of officers blocking the entrance to the business and trying to conduct their interview with the illegal worker, who worked in the kitchen of the premise, in front of customers.
He explained that he was attempting to get officers to move away from the front of house and into the back so as to not disrupt his customers. Officers judged this as him attempting to hinder rather than help their investigation.
Mr Amer told the panel through his representative that he had wrongly believed a National Insurance number to be sufficient to show a right to work.
He believes the relevant illegal worker found at the 2023 visit had provided a false name.
He also added that he mistakenly believed a French passport to be sufficient as proof of right to work, although acknowledged that Brexit would have likely made some changes to the working status of someone holding a French passport.
There was also a suggestion that he was paying his illegal workers less than minimum wage.
The licence holder’s explanation, that there had been a mistake when calculating pay due to the workers being on a part-time contract, was not seen as compelling by the panel.
Immigration officers raised concerns the cafe may be operating with a two-tier approach whereby staff operating at the front of the premises were legal workers whereas staff working in the back were illegal.
The applicant said that given the seriousness of the breach, it felt that civil penalties were not sufficient to prevent the use of illegal workers. This was an argument that appeared to sway the licencing panel.
In its decision, the panel cited a lack of evidence from Mr Amer that he had been misled by the illegal worker. While his representation had pushed for stringent conditions to be imposed on his licence rather than an all-out revocation, it was deemed that due to previous breaches back in 2019, he could not be fully trusted to enforce whatever conditions might be placed.
The panel did acknowledge the community’s love for the cafe and the support received by residents but ultimately concluded that the licence should be revoked.
In its decision the council wrote: “Having taken all submissions and representations into account along with the Statutory Guidance and the Council’s Licensing Policy, the Panel considered that there had been a significant breach and undermining of the licensing objectives, namely the prevention of crime and disorder.
“The use of illegal workers and possible exploitation in being underpaid against the National minimum wage was a clear breach of the licensing objective and furthermore, this was a repeated breach.
“The Panel therefore decided that revoking the licence was the appropriate and proportionate remedy in the circumstances as a breach of the prevention of crime and disorder objective was clear on two occasions.”
The decision can be challenged within 21 days with an appeal to the local Magistrate’s Court.
