A West London shop’s license was revoked after selling alcohol & vapes to 13 & 14-year-old girls, resulting in hospitalization.
They bought vodka and vapes at Newsmart on Askew Road last October. Three girls collapsed after drinking, and ambulances took them to the hospital where two girls went into shock.
The council later found more violations when a staff member sold vapes to underage kids during a test purchase. This showed the store wasn’t following rules.
After the girls’ incident, a mother spoke to the shop owner, Subir Bhatia. An officer requested a license review, stating that Bhatia ignored his duties, a sentiment echoed by police and mothers.
One mom said her daughter was very ill and blacked out at the hospital. They struggled to help her, and it took eight hours for her to wake up.
The mother said she and her daughter are traumatized; sirens and ambulances remind her of that night, which she describes as one of her worst days.
During a license meeting, an officer called it the worst case he’d seen in 15 years of reviews. He cited many failures in the case.
The shop didn’t provide CCTV footage, and illegal tobacco was found there. Bhatia also could not explain “Challenge 25”, a policy that helps prevent underage sales.
The officer noted that doctors and paramedics acted quickly regarding the girls’ situation. It could have been fatal because the situation was very serious.
Bhatia’s lawyer acknowledged the problems and said they wanted to keep the shop open by having Bhatia leave and a new owner apply for the license. A new owner applied for the license already.
A council member inquired about the CCTV, to which the lawyer responded that it was corrupted. He claimed the council could have acted sooner but waited for the footage.
The council revoked the license, and another man, Mandeep Bhatia, applied for it, raising concerns about a connection between the men.
The lawyer asserted they are not related, stating Bhatia is a common name. The council then worried about Mandeep Bhatia’s lack of experience, noting he did not attend training.
The lawyer said he waited for the license result. Council members thought he should get training first because he wanted the license and so training should come first.
They also questioned his age and the fact that he did not yet have a personal license. The council rejected his application after careful consideration.