Trading Standards gets UK's biggest car clockers 27 months each (December 2009)
Counterfeit Wine
On 24th January 2012 two Trading Standards cases were concluded at Willesden Magistrates Court.
In the first case, Mr Cumaraswamy Sothirajah trading as “Baranis” pleaded guilty to one offence of offering for sale 37 bottles of counterfeit “Jacobs Creek” wine. The defendant was fined £150 and ordered to pay £850 in prosecution costs to Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service. The forfeiture of all the wine was also awarded by the Magistrates.
Harrow Magistrates heard that the case arose from a routine inspection carried out by Trading Standards Officers at the defendant’s shop trading at Cumberland Court, Princess Drive, Harrow. The officers discovered 37 bottles of counterfeit Jacobs Creek wine which was a mixture of types, including Chardonnay and Sauvignon Blanc.
The defendant explained that although it was usually he that ordered all the stock, on this occasion his wife and son had bought the bottles from a man who had visited the shop when he was out at the cash and carry. The Magistrates were told that the defendant had been previously warned by Trading Standards not to buy stock in these circumstances and always to obtain receipts.
In passing sentence the Chair of the Magistrates explained that his early guilty plea and previous good character in 12 years of trading were taken into account when considering the level of penalty.
Misdescribed Property
In the second case Mr Anthony King, an estate agent employed by Gibbs Gillespie pleaded guilty to one offence under the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991. The defendant was fined £600 and ordered to pay £850 in prosecution costs to Brent & Harrow Trading Standards.
Harrow Magistrates heard that the case arose after a complaint was made to the Trading Standards Service by a prospective purchaser of a house which was being marketed by Gibbs Gillespie through the website “Rightmove.co.uk”. The property in question was marketed as being a three bedroomed house when in fact the third bedroom, a loft conversion, had never received planning permission, nor did it comply with the relevant building regulations. Harrow Magistrates heard that the prospective purchasers had commissioned a full survey of the property and conveyancing enquiries revealed that the house was, in effect, only a two bedroomed property. Despite the fact that the defendant had been informed of this fact by the prospective purchaser and had seen the surveyors report, the property continued to be marketed as a three bedroomed house.
Counsel for the defendant explained that the offence arose out of an honest mistake made by an administrator working at Gibbs Gillespie and that the defendant Mr King had taken full responsibility for this error. In mitigation Counsel for the defendant stated that the defendant had worked as an estate agent for eleven years and was well respected in the industry.
In passing sentence the Chair of the Magistrates explained that the defendant’s previous good character, early guilty plea and mitigation had been taken into account.
Speaking after the case, Bill Bilon, Head of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service said: “These cases illustrate the diversity of investigations that are carried out by my officers. The first case shows how important it is for retailers only to buy stock from reputable sources and never from an itinerant trader hawking goods in this manner.
The second case illustrates how easy it can be for a reputable, long established business to fall foul of the law when proper procedures are not in place.”
Notes to Editors
1. The maximum penalty that can be imposed under the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 is £5000 for each offence.
2. Under the Trade Marks Act 1994, it is an offence to possess for sale or sell any goods bearing marks which have not been authorised by the trade mark owner. The maximum penalty which can be imposed by the Magistrates Court is a fine of £5,000 for each offence.
3. For more information please contact Simon Martin of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service on 020 8937 5533.
Phone Trader on Receiving End of the Law
On Tuesday 17 January 2012, a local trader specialising in mobile phones and their accessories, pleaded guilty to three offences brought by Brent & Harrow Trading Standards for selling unsafe and counterfeit phone accessories.
Following a seizure by Trading Standards in June 2011 from the shop named ‘Phone Centre’, located at 128 High Road Willesden, the operating company, Phoneus.com Limited, as well as its Director, Zishaan Ali Qureshi, both pleaded guilty to offences under the Trade Marks Act 1994, the Consumer Protections Act 1987 and the Companies Act 2006. Sentenced at Willesden Magistrates Court, Mr Qureshi received a fine of £350 and was instructed to pay costs of £1,058. The company did not receive a separate penalty.
The court heard Trading Standards officers had initially visited Phone Centre in November 2010, during which time Mr Qureshi received business advice which included a warning about being alert to the fact that counterfeits phone accessories were available in the market place.
During a further visit in June 2011 a quantity of counterfeit phone accessories including phone covers and ear pieces were found to be on offer for sale featuring brand names such as Apple, Louis Vuitton, Ed Hardy and Sony Ericsson. A sample of phone charges were also seized which were later submitted for examination by an electrical safety expert who found them to be unsafe. Whilst in the shop, officers also noticed that there was no notice on display providing customers with the business ownership details as required by the Companies Act 2006. Again, Mr Qureshi had been told to display this notice in November 2010 at the time of Trading Standards’ advisory visit.
Mr Zishaan’s legal representative told the court his client “appreciated the efforts made by the London Borough of Brent [Trading Standards] in alerting him to the trade mark issues but he did not realise. He had not seen anything wrong with them but accepts he should have taken more careful attention.” He went on to acknowledge Mr Zishaan should have carried out some electrical safety testing to ensure the chargers were safe and explained that the business ownership details were displayed at the shop but the notice had fallen down and had not been replaced.
Speaking after sentencing, Bill Bilon, Head of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards, said, “This is an example of a trader receiving comprehensive advice as regards complying with the law and not paying heed to it. In addition to not displaying the business ownership details and selling fake goods, there were safety implications concerning the sale of unsafe chargers. Those who run businesses must take steps and document this, to ensure that stock they are selling safe and legitimate before placing good onto their shop shelves.”
Notes for Editors –
1) Under the Trade Marks Act 1994, it is an offence to possess for sale or sell any goods bearing marks which have not been authorised by the trade mark owner. The maximum penalty which can be imposed by the Magistrates Court is a fine of £5,000 per offence and / or up to 6 months imprisonment.
2) Under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, it is an offence to supply or offer to supply unsafe goods. The maximum sentence under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 is a £5,000 fine.
3) For further information please contact Brent Trading Standards Service Manager, Simon Legg, on 0208 937 5522 or by e-mail at simon.legg@brent.gov.uk
Unsafe Toys for Christmas
On 10th January 2012, HR Construction Limited, pleaded guilty to 13 offences at Harrow Magistrates Court for selling unsafe toys and counterfeit lighters. The company was fined £9300 and ordered to pay £2630 in prosecution costs to Brent & Harrow Trading Standards. The forfeiture of all goods was also awarded by the Magistrates.
HR Construction Ltd, trading as “Simply Fashions”, operated from a temporary stall which was located inside St. Ann’s Shopping Centre, Harrow, during the busy shopping period on the run up to Christmas 2010. The company received the sentence after pleading guilty to eight offences under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, relating to selling unsafe mechanical toys, remote controlled racing cars and dolls; two offences under the Trade Marks Act 1994 for supplying counterfeit “BEN 10” racing cars and “Hello Kitty” lighters; and three offences under the Companies Act 2006 for failing to disclose business ownership details to their customers.
Failures under the Toy (Safety) Regulations include;
• Sharp edges and points
• Finger entrapment hazard
• Choking hazard to children
• Insufficient instructions
• Inadequate warnings
• Excessive presence of phthalates which have been found to be carcinogenic
Failures under the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations include;
• No thermal fuse fitted to radio controlled electric car
• Inadequate protection from overloads and short circuits causing a fire risk
• Inadequate markings
The electrical expert concluded that the samples tested could not be regarded as being safe and constructed in accordance with principles of good engineering practice.
The Magistrates heard that the investigation against HR Construction Ltd arose after Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service conducted an inspection of the toy stall in December 2010, following the test purchase of a ‘Dancing Family Doll’, which was found to be unsafe.
100 toys and 99 lighters were seized from the stall on three separate occasions as the stock was replenished following the visits by the Trading Standards Officers.
The Chair of the Magistrates explained that the defendant company’s trade was aimed at children and it was their responsibility to ensure that the goods were safe. Consumers were entitled to expect that the quality of these goods would be just as high as if they had purchased them from well-known high street retailers. The Magistrates were also told that there had been a previous warning by Trading Standards Officers which had been ignored by the defendant company.
Credit was given by the Magistrates to the company for its previous good character and for pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity.
Speaking after the case, Bill Bilon, Head of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service said: “This case illustrates how important it is for businesses to ensure that all the goods that they sell are safe and fully compliant with the relevant legislation. It is due to the vigilance of my officers that these products were removed from the stall, and that no children were injured. I am pleased that the Magistrates recognised the potential serious harm that could have been caused had these products been sold and used by children”.
Notes to Editors
1. The maximum penalty under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994 and the Toy (Safety) Regulations 1995 is £5000.
2. Under the Trade Marks Act 1994, it is an offence to possess for sale or sell any goods bearing marks which have not been authorised by the trade mark owner. The maximum penalty which can be imposed by the Magistrates Court is a fine of £5,000 per offence.
3. It is an offence contrary to Section 10 of the Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008 if a business does not correctly display within its premises a notice of its ownership. The maximum penalty which can be imposed by Magistrates is £1000.
4. For more information please contact Simon Martin of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service on 020 8937 5533.
Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Wins Prosecution Award
Brent and Harrow Trading Standards and the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) both won an award from the Solicitor General, Edward Garnier QC MP at the Prosecutors Convention 2011 on 17th November 2011 in recognition on their partnership working for jointly bringing a prosecution of a car clamper.
The nomination arose as a result of a case which was concluded in Brent Magistrates court in November 2010, when the car clamper was sentenced to 16 weeks imprisonment (suspended for 18 months), fined £500 and ordered to carry out 120 hours unpaid work. In addition to this, he was ordered to pay £1,051 in compensation to his victims and Brent and Harrow Trading Standards prosecution costs of £2,575.50.
Lee Ray Peacock, aged 44, Director of Regional Clamping Services Ltd, pleaded guilty to two offences under The Fraud Act 2006 for allowing his company to continue trading despite the fact it had been wound up by the Official Receiver. He also pleaded guilty to an offence of aggressive trading under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
Brent and Harrow Trading Standards worked in partnership with BIS, who added two further offences after proceedings had been instituted against Mr Peacock. He was charged with continuing to act in the management of another company, Regional Clamping Services (UK) Ltd, when he was disqualified from holding such office and also for the fact that he was using a company name which was similar to the company which had previously been wound up (Regional Clamping Services Ltd).
The defendant also pleaded guilty to these two offences and was given a further 10 weeks consecutive prison sentence suspended for 18 months and ordered to pay £858.50 to BIS as a contribution towards their prosecution costs.
Both BIS and Brent and Harrow Trading Standards faced stiff competition from other nominees for this prestigious award but the judges recognised the fact that both departments identified overlapping interests at an early stage, were innovative and had a flexible approach and made efficient use of resources in bringing this joint prosecution. In addition to this, the significant national and local media interest that resulted from this ground breaking prosecution enhanced public confidence in both departments.
Nagendar Bilon, Head of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service said after the presentation, “I am extremely pleased that the good work of both BIS and Trading Standards has been acknowledged at the highest levels within government and is a testament to the fact that we have the adeptness to identify opportunities to share resources and best practice with fellow regulators. This type of joined up working is the way forward, particularly where there are linked offences such as in this case and it affords us the option of sharing the costs of bring the case to court. I am sure that we will look for more opportunities to bring criminals to task where other regulators also have an interest”.
Notes for Editors –
1) For further information on this press release, please contact Ash Shah on 0208 937 5511.
Stout Reprimand
On Wednesday 9 November 2011, two cases undertaken by the London Boroughs of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service were concluded at Harrow Magistrates Court, the details of which are as follows.
In the first case, Mr Rajeswaran Nadarajah (aged 53), trading as ‘Pinner Food and Wine’, of 547 Pinner Road, North Harrow pleaded guilty to selling alcohol to two children aged 13 and 14.
During the hearing the Court heard that as part of a routine test purchasing exercise to monitor the sale of age restricted products, on 5th February 2011, Trading Standards Officers instructed the children to attempt to purchase alcohol from Pinner Food and Wine. The children were served by a sales assistant who sold them four cans of Guinness Stout without checking their identification or asking any questions as to their age.
When questioned under caution, Mr Nadarajah stated that he had employed the sales assistant to help out in the shop as a result of his ill health. His employee had been working at the shop for a month for up to 12 hours a week without pay as she was on probation. He was unable to provide any proof of training and stated that it had been given verbally.
The Magistrates were told that as the business owner, premise licence holder and designated premise supervisor, it was incumbent on Mr Nadarajah to exercise control over the sale of age restricted products at all times and he failed to demonstrate that he was doing this.
Mr Nadarajah has now sold the business and the Magistrates took this into account along with the fact that he pleaded guilty to the offence at the first opportunity, when passing sentence. He was given a one year conditional discharge and ordered to pay £700 in prosecution costs to the London Borough of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service.
A Sharp Reminder
In the second case, the Court heard that on 28th March 2011, Trading Standards Officers sent two volunteers aged 13 and 14 to the retail premises of A & I Choice Limited, trading as ‘99 Pence’ at Burnt Oak Broadway, Edgware, Middlesex.
The children entered the shop and asked an employee where the knives were kept and were directed by him to the area where they were displayed. They selected a set of five craft knives and took them to the till where another man served the children without challenging them with respect to their age.
When officers went back to the shop after the sale to advise the business of what had happened, they discovered that that the seller was not an employee, but merely an acquaintance who was helping out and should not have been serving customers.
Neither of the two men serving in the shop appeared to know that there was an age restriction on the sale of knives and that they could only be sold to people over the age of 18. While the Officers were gathering evidence, the seller ran away and during the course of the investigation, it was apparent that he had provided the officers with false details and, as a result, they were unable to locate him.
When passing sentence the Magistrates took account of the fact that the business was relatively new at the time of the offence and they entered a guilty plea at the first opportunity. The Chairman of the Magistrates commented that the lack of control of the sale of sharp knives was a very serious matter and they imposed a £1000 fine and ordered A & I Choice Limited to pay £785 towards the costs of the prosecution.
Nagendar Bilon, Head of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service said after the cases, “It is a personal disappoint for me that businesses in Brent and Harrow are still getting it wrong and allowing children to obtain goods which are strongly linked to anti social behaviour. We have tried very hard to educate local businesses about their legal obligations when it comes to age restricted products and have produced a toolkit for shopkeepers to use to prevent these sales from happening.
Knives such as these may look ordinary but they have razor sharp blades and are extremely dangerous if they are misused or used as a weapon”.
“Businesses should not underestimate the role of their cashiers whose job it is to ensure these types of sales do not take place. My Officers will continue to conduct test purchases at local businesses to ensure that they are playing their part in protecting children and helping to prevent anti-social behaviour”.
Notes for Editors –
1) Under the Licensing Act 2003, it is an offence to sell alcohol to an individual aged under 18. The maximum penalty which can be imposed by the Magistrates Court is a fine of £5,000.
2) Under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (as amended) it is an offence to sell a knife to any person under 18 years of age. The maximum penalty which can be imposed the Magistrates Court is six months in prison a £5000 fine or both.
3) For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Martin on 0208 937 5533.
Harrow Magistrates Sentence Two Traders - (1) vodka
On 19th October 2011, two separate cases, involving under age sales and counterfeit items were concluded at Harrow Magistrates Court, which resulted in fines totalling £1,600. Costs of £1,968 were also awarded to the London Boroughs of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service. The details of these two cases are as follows:-
The court heard that the Trading Standards Service received a complaint from a member of the public who stated that a bottle of Smirnoff Vodka from the defendants shop, Rayners Lane Food & Wine, at Alexandra Avenue, Rayners Lane, had a strange taste and smell. On receiving the complaint, Trading Standards Officers visited the premises and seized a quantity of vodka, which was confirmed as being counterfeit by the trade mark representatives. The defendant, Mr Balasingam Wijayabalachandran (aged 41) was later interviewed under caution when he stated that he had bought the vodka from a man in a van because it was cheaper than buying through his normal cash and carry.
During the hearing, the defendant’s legal representative stated that Mr Wijayabalachandran bought the cheap vodka because of the competition from the large supermarkets which had made trading difficult for him.
In passing sentence, the Magistrates stated that offences concerning counterfeit alcohol were very serious. The defendant was fined a total of £1,000 and ordered to pay £1,040 in prosecution costs to the London Boroughs of Brent.
Harrow Magistrates Sentence Two Traders - (2) cigarettes
The court heard that on 18th March 2011, undercover Trading Standards Officers and two volunteer children, one aged 12 and one 15, were conducting an under age test purchasing operation in the Kenton area. The two children went to Belmont Superstore at Warwick Parade, Belmont Circle where the 15 year old girl was able to buy a packet of cigarettes.
Officers returned to the shop and identified the sales assistant as Mr Ilankeeran Sivaganashan. They also spoke to a Mr Sethukavalar Ketheeswaran, who the business was owned by Belmont Superstore Limited, and that he was a director of the company. Whilst on the premises, the officers viewed the CCTV footage which clearly showed the sale taking place.
The court heard that a few weeks later the officers returned to the Belmont Superstore and made an undercover purchase of a bottle of Jacob’s Creek wine as they suspected that it was counterfeit. Immediately following the purchase, the officers entered the premises and examined the remainder of the stock and seized 18 bottles of Jacob’s Creek wine as they suspected that they were all counterfeit.
During the hearing, both Mr Sivaganeshan and Mr Ketheeswaran stated that they had made mistakes.
In passing sentence, the Magistrates gave then credit for their early guilty pleas and fined Mr Sivaganeshan £250 for the offence of selling the cigarettes to the underage child. Belmont Superstore Ltd was fined £1,000 in relation to the counterfeit wine and it’s Director, Mr Ketheeswaran did not receive a separate penalty but was ordered to pay the prosecution’s costs of £928.
Bill Bilon, Head of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service, said “The sale of any age restricted product is a very serious matter and smoking related diseases are responsible for 100,000 deaths in the UK each year. According to Action Against Smoking, two thirds of regular smokers start smoking before the age of 18. Therefore, it is important that we carry out our underage test purchasing exercises and, at the same time, continue to inform and educate local businesses to prevent under age sales of age restricted products such as cigarettes and alcohol.
“The sale of counterfeit products continues to be a problem in our area and what most members of the public do not realise is that in most cases fakes are inferior in quality. In this particular case the consumer was clearly able to taste and smell the difference, but fortunately the counterfeit wine did not, on this occasion, contain any harmful ingredients. Therefore, my advice to traders is to always buy from reputable sources and to not get tempted by cheap deals that are too good to be true.”
Notes for Editors –
1) It is an offence under The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to sell these tobacco products to anyone under the age of 18. The maximum penalty which can be imposed under the Act is a fine of up to £2500 per offence.
2) Under the Trade Marks Act 1994, it is an offence to possess for sale or sell any goods bearing marks which have not been authorised by the trade mark owner. The maximum penalty which can be imposed by the Magistrates Court is a fine of £5,000 per offence and / or up to 6 months imprisonment.
3) For further information on this press release, please contact Ash Shah on 0208 937 5511.
Trader Given a Fine to Chew On
On 18 October 2011, Mr Harkisham Bhimji (age 57) of Greenford Road, Harrow appeared at Brent Magistrates Court and pleaded guilty to selling tobacco Paan without the required statutory health warning. He was fined £500 and ordered to pay £400 towards Brent & Harrow Trading Standards’ costs.
The court heard that in April 2011, an undercover Trading Standards officer visited the defendant’s retail premises ‘Krishna Pan’ located on the High Road, Wembley. He asked to buy Paan and paid £1.20. The product was supplied unwrapped without the required statutory health warning stating “this tobacco product can damage your health and is addictive”.
Tobacco Paan is a mix of tobacco and nuts or spices wrapped in Betal leaf. The product, which is commonly consumed by the Asian community, is chewed as a palate cleanser and a breath freshener before being spat out. This spitting leaves behind a dark red stain and is frequently seen on pavements and other public areas where users consume the product.
Paan is thought to be responsible for the alarming rise in the number of cases of oral cancer in London.
In the past, Mr Bhimji had been supplied with free spitting bags by the Trading Standards Service which could be used to wrap the Paan up; displayed the statutory heath warning; and provided the user with a spittoon to responsibly dispose of the product after they have chewed it. The court learnt that this was Mr Bhimji’s second wrongdoing having been convicted for an identical offence in November 2009.
Mr Bhimji explained he had a sign in his shop warning consumers of the dangers and his employee who sold the Paan, wrongly thought it could be supplied without the health warning if was going to be consumed straight away.
Bill Bilon, Head of Consumer and Business Protection said: “If you chew Paan with tobacco regularly, you are up to five times more likely to develop mouth cancer than somebody who doesn’t. This is why it is so essential that the products are properly labelled and users are made fully aware of the dangers. My officers will continue their spot checks at Paan retailers to ensure the Regulations are being adhered to and to help protect the health of potential users.”
Notes for editors
1. For further information on this press release please contact Simon Legg on 020 8937 5522.
2. Under the Tobacco Products (Manufacture, Presentation and Sale) (Safety) Regulations 2002, smokeless tobacco products must be accompanied with the statutory warning: “THIS TOBACCO PRODUCT CAN DAMAGE YOUR HEALTH AND IS ADDICTIVE”
3. To make a complaint about tobacco Paan, call Consumer Direct on 08454 04 05 06. Consumer Direct is the first point of contact for consumer advice. Complaints requiring investigation are passed to the Trading Standards Service to action locally. Alternatively guidance can be found at www.consumerdirect.gov.uk
Hatch End Shop Pays the Price of Failure
A Harrow business was strongly reprimanded by Harrow Magistrate’s on Wednesday 5th October for flouting regulations governing the supply of Butane gas to children. The owner of Hatch End Food & Wine, Mr Thillainathan (aged 55) was fined £405 and ordered to pay £500 to the London Boroughs of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service.
The Court heard that Trading Standards Officers conducting routine test purchasing with two children aged 13 and 14 sent the volunteers into Hatch End Food and Wine under instruction to attempt to purchase cigarette lighter refill gas containing Butane, a product restricted to persons aged 18 years and over.
A review of covert recording of the incident showed that one employee guided the children to where the gas was kept and Mr Thillainathan himself served them. The children were not asked how old they were or for any proof of age and it was noted that the owner was talking on his mobile telephone while serving.
The Chair of the Magistrates commented that this was a very serious offence and the protection of children and others in the community is of paramount importance.
Credit was given for an early guilty plea as well as the fact that the defendant was of good character.
Head of Trading Standards Nagendar Bilon said after the hearing. “I am glad that the Magistrates recognised the seriousness of the offence and I hope this sends a message to other traders about their responsibilities. When serving age restricted products it is important that your mind is fully on the job. Abuse of Butane is extremely serious; the first time can be fatal. Statistics show that in 39% of volatile solvent abuse (VSA) deaths there was no evidence of previous solvent abuse. Solvent abuse can stop your heart working properly which can kill you instantly. People who abuse solvents for a long time risk damage to their heart, brain, liver and kidneys.”
Notes for Editors –
1) Under The Cigarette Lighter Refill (Safety) Regulations 1999 it is an offence to supply any cigarette lighter refill canister containing butane or a substance with butane as a constituent part to any person under the age of eighteen years.
2) The maximum penalty that can be imposed by magistrates for each of the above offences is a fine of £5000 or six months custody.
3) For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Martin on 0208 937 5533
Student punished for possessing fake medicines and clothing labels and buttons
On Thursday 6 October 2011, HHJ Mole sentenced Daanish Mulla (aged 24) of Ruislip, north-west London, to a four month custodial sentence for his part in an operation supplying counterfeit labels and buttons to make fake items of clothing and the unlicensed supply of erectile dysfunction tablets.
The judge, sitting at Harrow Crown Court, heard that Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service were tipped off about Mr Mulla’s activities by HM Revenue & Customs who had detected various importations of counterfeit goods being shipped to an address in Dollis Hill Lane in Brent. A search of this address led officers to a shared rented flat in Station Road, Harrow where Mr Mulla, originally from India, resided as an overseas student. A search warrant was executed at the premises on 2 September 2010.
The search revealed over 2,000 counterfeit labels and buttons which could have been used manufacture fake clothing to look like original desirable brands and over 25,000 tablets and sachets of erectile dysfunction medicines worth up to £50,000 on the black market.
Mr Mulla was arrested and taken for questioning by Trading Standards officers but chose to provide a ‘no comment’ interview.
Trading Standards officers enlisted the assistance of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) who took samples of the seized medicines to be analysed. Their results concluded that the drugs were predominantly made up of unlicensed erectile dysfunction pharmaceuticals.
Forensic analysis of a computer seized from the defendant revealed spreadsheets containing names and addresses of those he was to package and distributes the drugs to.
Mr Mulla claimed not to know anything about the counterfeit labels saying he was employed by somebody to receive parcels on his behalf and he [Mr Mulla] had no knowledge of the relevance of them. He also denied any wrongdoing with respect to the drugs explaining that he would receive instructions from ‘Sunny’ who he would distribute them for. Mr Mulla himself denied having any direct contact with any customers or taking any money.
Bill Billon, Head of Consumer and Business Protection said: “I am very pleased we have disrupted this operation that potentially was supplying other criminals with labels and buttons used to manufacturer fake goods and prevented medicines from being supplied in what would have been a totally uncontrolled manner.
“The whole reason these drugs have to be authorised and licensed is because they can pose significant risk to public health if supplied to users without proper medical supervision.”
Nimo Ahmed, MHRA’s acting Head of Enforcement said: "This operation has removed a significant number of unlicensed medicines from the market. The sale of unlicensed medicines is illegal, and their use could be dangerous as there is no certainty regarding the quality of the product."
Notes for Editors –
1) For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Legg on 020 8937 5522.
Caught Red Handed
After a two day trial a Wembley Market trader was given a six month Community Order, a curfew enforced by electronic tagging, a deprivation order of £750 and ordered to pay costs of £900 by Brent Magistrates on 31st August 2011 for possessing for sale 1505 counterfeit and unclassified DVDs.
Mr Sahir Yakub (aged 28) from Leicester, had pleaded not guilty to a total of eight offences under the Trade Marks Act 1994, Video Recordings Act 1984 and the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. However after a two day trial, Brent Magistrates found the defendant guilty of all the offences.
The court heard that at 5.15pm on Sunday 10th October 2010 the Metropolitan Police stopped a blue BMW car which was being driven erratically in the vicinity of Wembley Market on Great Central Way. The police searched the defendant and discovered a small quantity of DVDs in his jacket together with £750 in cash. A further search of the vehicle revealed 1505 DVDs in two suitcases in the boot of the car. The defendant commented to the Police Officer that the DVDs were his and that he had been selling second-hand DVDs at Wembley Market. The Police Officer noticed that many of the DVDs were of films that had only just been released at the cinema in the UK, and that there were multiple copies of these and others. Consequently the DVDs and cash were seized and the defendant arrested.
Later, samples of the DVDs were sent to FACT (Federation Against Copyright Theft) and BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) and they were all found to be either counterfeit or unclassified.
The following day the defendant was interviewed by Trading Standards Officers and chose not to make any comment, or produce any explanation. During the course of the trial the defendant did not give evidence, or call any other witnesses in his own defence.
At the conclusion of the trial the Magistrates found the defendant guilty of all eight sample offences and stated that he had at no time ever put forward any alternative explanation and that they had no option but to find him guilty.
Bill Bilon, Head of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service said; “I am very pleased that in this case, the Police and my officers have worked together in partnership to bring this defendant before the Court. Traders at Wembley Market must realise that Trading Standards will not tolerate the trade in illicit DVDs or any other goods, and that swift and decisive action will be taken when trade in such items is discovered.”
Notes for Editors –
1. Under the Trade Marks Act 1994, it is an offence to possess for sale or sell any goods bearing marks which have not
been authorised by the trade mark owner. The maximum penalty that can be imposed by the Magistrates Court is a fine of £5,000 per offence and/or up to 6 months imprisonment.
2. Under the Video Recordings Act 1984, it is an offence to possess for supply a recording that has not been classified. The maximum penalty that can be imposed by the Magistrates Court is a fine of £20,000 per offence and/or up to 6 months imprisonment.
3. Under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, it is an offence to possess for supply a recording that infringes the copyright. The maximum penalty that can be imposed by the Magistrates Court is a fine of £5,000 per offence and/or up to 3 months imprisonment.
4. For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Martin on 020 8937 5533.
Trader Given a Rocket for Unsafe Firework Storage
A Harrow business paid the price at Harrow Magistrate’s Court yesterday for flouting regulations governing the safe storage of fireworks. Sidana Ltd trading as Londis Streatfield Road entered guilty pleas to all three offences for the unsafe storage of fireworks.
The Court heard that Trading Standards Officers conducted a routine advice visit prior to November 5th and warned the business that they were not keeping their fireworks in a safe manner. The business was advised that action to prevent the spread of fire and protect staff and the members of the public would need to be taken immediately.
A follow up visit confirmed that remedial action had been taken and the fireworks were safely locked away. However on November 5th following a tip off from a concerned resident, officers paid a surprise visit to the Londis shop in Streatfield Road and were shocked by what they found.
As officers entered the shop they saw that loose fireworks and boxes of fireworks were strewn around the shop, laying on top of magazine racks and around the floor where customers had free access to them.
A full inspection revealed that there was a total breakdown of safety measures and the stock room at the rear of the shop was also covered in an array of fireworks both in and out of boxes laid out on top of other stock. The agreed storage area was wide open and again there were fireworks spread around everywhere.
When confronted the manager tried to suggest to one officer that they should “turn a blind eye” as he was only trying to make an honest living. Staff were ordered to restore safety measures and lock the explosives away in the agreed storage area.
At Court credit was given for an early guilty plea and the remorse shown by the company representative. However, the chair of the magistrates stated that these were serious breaches putting the safety of the staff and members of the public at risk. The company were fined £3000 and costs of £995 were awarded to the Trading Standards Service.
At the conclusion of the proceedings, Bill Bilon, Head of Consumer and Business Protection said, “I hope that this case sends a clear message to those involved in the storage and sale of fireworks that they cannot take anything for granted and must remain vigilant at all times. The potential danger of these products cannot be underestimated. By relaxing their safeguards this business was playing with fire”. “We offer support to local businesses every year by providing them free training and guidance with respect to the safe storage and sale of fireworks. We inspect and advise every stockist in Harrow so there can be no excuses for this sort of lapse in safety.”
Notes for Editors –
1) Under the Manufacture and Storage of Explosives Regulations 2005, it is an offence to fail to take appropriate measures to limit the extent of fire or explosion, including measures to prevent the spreading of fires and the communication of explosions from one location to another.
2) Under the Manufacture and Storage of Explosives Regulations 2005, it is an offence to fail to take appropriate measures to protect persons from the effects of fire or explosion.
3) Under the Explosives Act 1875 it is an offence to fail to prevent unauthorised access to explosives.
4) The maximum penalty that can be imposed by magistrates for each of the above offences is a fine of £5000.
5) For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Martin on 0208 937 5533
Market Trader looses his ‘Swagger’ in Court
A Wembley Market stall owner was fined £500 and ordered to pay costs of £1,000 by Brent Magistrates Court on 16 August for selling counterfeit goods.
Mr Wilton West (aged 49) of Watford, pleaded guilty to seven offences under the Trade Marks Act 1994 for exposing for sale counterfeit goods which included Star in the Hood and Superman t-shirts, New Era tops and novelty boxing gloves which featured the registered trade marks of Premiership football clubs.
The court heard that Brent & Harrow Trading Standards had conducted a joint operation with the Metropolitan Police on 12 September 2010 targeting the numerous stalls selling counterfeit goods at Wembley Market.
One such stall was operated by Mr West who traded as ‘Wills Worldwide Swagger’. Officer’s discovered a mixture of counterfeit and genuine goods being offered for sale on his stall which would have made it confusing for a potential purchaser to know if the items were legitimate or not.
Following the seizure, Mr West attended an interview where he explained that he had been running this particular market stall for eight months. He had sourced his stock from other markets without conducting any checks to verify their authenticity. Mr West could not identify who he had bought the items from and had no receipts.
Mr West apologised to the court and explained that it was not in his character to fall foul of the law and that he was very sorry for his actions.
The magistrates stated: “This case had bought home to you [Mr West] that trade marks and their owner’s rights is something that you cannot dismiss.” When passing their sentence, the magistrates took into consideration Mr West’s previous good characters, his naivety and the fact that he pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
Bill Bilon, Head of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service said: “This service will not hesitate to take action against those who con the public and take unfair advantage of famous brand names by selling counterfeit goods. Traders must be proactive and carry out checks before they buy their stock to ensure it is legitimate to sell. If they don’t, they may find themselves as in this case, with a criminal record and a financial penalty. In some cases, they could even be sent to prison.”
Notes for Editors –
1) Under the Trade Marks Act 1994, it is an offence to possess for sale or sell any goods bearing marks which have not been authorised by the trade mark owner. The maximum penalty which can be imposed by the Magistrates Court is a fine of £5,000 per offence and / or up to 6 months imprisonment. In the Crown Court the maximum penalty for an offence under the Trade Marks Act 1994 is an unlimited fine and / or up to ten years imprisonment.
2) For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Legg on 020 8937 5522.
Alcohol Underage Sale
On Tuesday 16 August 2011, a local trader was fined £550 by Brent Magistrates and ordered to pay a further £867 in prosecution costs to the London Boroughs of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service.
Mr Harprit Singh Sareen (aged 22) trading as ‘Jay’s Superstore’ from Wembley Hill Road, Wembley, pleaded guilty to selling two bottles of Smirnoff Ice to two 14 year old children.
The court heard that the offence arose as a result of an undercover operation by Trading Standards in the Wembley area on Thursday 24 February 2011. The child volunteers were able to buy the bottles of alcohol from the defendant’s shop completely unchallenged by his employee who served them.
Following the sale, officers returned to the shop where they observed that there was no tobacco warning notice displayed stating ‘It is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone under the age of 18’, an offence for which Mr Sareen received a fine of £50.
Mr Sareen was interviewed at a later date where he explained that he had provided his staff with verbal training but they had made a mistake and he was sorry that the sale had taken place.
During Trading Standard’s investigation, it was established that there were various systems and controls that Mr Sareen could have put in place to prevent sales of alcohol to young children yet he had not done so despite some of them being requirements of his licence to sell alcohol.
Having been shown a photograph of the child volunteers, the magistrates commented, “the children are definitely underage.”
Bill Bilon, Head of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service said, “Preventing underage sales is a continuing priority for the service and we regularly carry out undercover operations to monitor the compliance of local traders. This business is located opposite Wembley Stadium and in the vicinity of local schools where the sale of alcohol must be strictly controlled. The law rightfully places a heavy burden on licensees to ensure that they and their staff act responsibly in order to comply with legislation.”
Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service operate a ‘Responsible Trader Scheme’ which is free for businesses to join providing training and guidance to retailers to prevent underage sales. For more information, contact the Service on 020 8937 5555.
Notes for Editors
1. Under The Licensing Act 2003, it is an offence to sell alcohol to anyone under the age of eighteen and carries a maximum penalty of £5,000 per offence.
2. The Children and Young Persons Act 1991 creates an offence for failing to display a tobacco warning notice in a prescribed format where tobacco is sold and carries a maximum penalty of £1,000 per offence.
3. For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Legg on 020 8937 5511.
We Are ‘WATCHING’ You.
A trader who sold fake designer watches from various internet auction sites was sentenced to 200 hours of unpaid work and given an eight month prison sentence suspended for two years on 5 August 2011 at Harrow Crown Court.
Manish Vishram Patel (aged 32), of Kingsbury, pleaded guilty to eight offences under the Trade Marks Act 1994 for selling and possessing counterfeit items for sale. Among them were watches and accessories bearing brands names such as Rolex, Breitling, Panerai and Omega. Had the goods been genuine, it is estimated they would have been worth over £900,000.
The court heard that Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service had received a complaint from Rolex that Mr Patel had been selling counterfeit watches. Enquiries conducted by Trading Standards revealed that Mr Patel had been using auction websites such as Ebay and CQout.com to sell watches and accessories ranging in price from £179 to £259. Investigations revealed that his trading activities were also carried out from another address in Kenton.
Trading Standards Officers with assistance from the Metropolitan Police executed two warrants at the addresses and found a large stash of watches and watch paraphernalia. Samples of these were later sent to the relevant trade mark holders who confirmed that they were counterfeit. Mr Patel was arrested and interviewed under caution when he admitted that he had been trading for the past four years and that he had made £12,000 a year in profit from the sale of replica watches. He explained that his supplier was based in China but could not provide any other useful information as to their whereabouts. He also admitted that he had had parcels stopped by Customs Officers as they were counterfeits.
Mr Patel’s business had afforded him with a good lifestyle as he had a luxury Range Rover vehicle with a personalised number plate for which he had paid £20,000 in cash.
In mitigation, counsel representing Mr Patel stated that he had started his business as a legitimate venture but due to redundancy from his job as a graphic designer, he had started replica watches. Defence Counsel accepted that the biggest losers in this type of activity were the watch industry. She added that Mr Patel has co-operated with Trading Standards, carried out charity work and that he had not been in trouble before.
Confiscation proceedings have also been started under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in order to recover the money that Mr Patel has made as a result of the trade in illegal goods. Some of Mr Patel’s assets have been frozen by the Trading Standards Service in order to prevent them from being dissipated prior to the confiscation hearing.
Whilst passing sentence, HHJ Moss sitting at Harrow Crown Court said: “You are not going directly to prison, but you are not far from it.” and added that Mr Patel was saved from a custodial sentence as a result of his good character. He stated that Mr Patel had now lost his previous good character and that would be a personal loss to him.
Speaking after the case Bill Bilon, Head of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service said: “Traders who think that they can benefit from the reputation that bona fide businesses build are mistaken. Without the well known brand names being attached to the goods, these watches and accessories would be virtually worthless. Mr Patel has the ensuing confiscation proceedings to face and we want to make sure that criminals do not profit from their illegal activities.”
Notes for Editors –
1) Under the Trade Marks Act 1994, it is an offence to possess for sale or sell any goods bearing marks which have not been authorised by the trade mark owner. The maximum penalty which can be imposed by the Magistrates Court is a fine of £5,000 per offence and / or up to 6 months imprisonment. In the Crown Court the maximum penalty for an offence under the Trade Marks Act 1994 is an unlimited fine and / or up to ten years imprisonment.
2) For further information on this press release, please contact Ash Shah on 020 8937 5511.
Harrow Magistrates Sentence Three Traders.
P>On 10th August 2011, three separate cases, two involving under age sales and one concerning counterfeit items were concluded at Harrow Magistrates Court which resulted in one suspended custodial sentence, 240 hrs of unpaid work and fines totalling £1,800. Costs of £2,285 were also awarded to the London Boroughs of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service. The details of these three cases are as follows:-
Case 1.
The court heard that following a long investigation that began in November 2009 the defendant Marcus Walton of Greenford pleaded guilty to operating a website called “supertvproducts.com” which was selling counterfeit pedicure sets, hair clips and dog nail clippers. It was said that these were unusual items to find being counterfeited but the Trade Mark owner in this case, John Mills Ltd had confirmed that all the items seized by Trading Standards Officers were indeed counterfeit.
Officers executed entry warrants at the defendants home address as well as three self storage units at Harrow and Alperton. Just under 1500 items were seized with a value of approximately £23,000 if they had been genuine.
The Magistrates were told that the defendant had previously been convicted of committing similar offences by Hillingdon Magistrates in 2009 and the Chair of the Harrow Magistrates commented that this was clearly a “sophisticated operation” which could have resulted in a “significant loss to the industry”. The Chair further stated that these factors together with the previous conviction made it inevitable that a term of custody would be imposed.
Consequently Marcus Walton was sentenced to 10 weeks custody suspended for two years together with an order to complete 240 hours of unpaid work. Costs were also awarded to Brent and Harrow Trading Standards of £400 and all the counterfeit items were ordered to be forfeited.
Case 2.
The court heard that on 22nd January 2011 undercover Trading Standards Officers and two volunteer children, one aged 13 and one 14 were conducting an under age test purchasing operation in the Stanmore area. The two children went to Pooles Newsagent at Stanmore Broadway where the 13 year old girl was able to buy a canister of cigarette lighter refill containing butane. The Magistrates were informed of the significant dangers to anyone sniffing butane gas, and that similar intoxicating effects to alcohol, and even death, could result.
The child was served by the defendant Mr Arvind Bhudia without being asked her age or for any form of identification. Enquiries revealed that the defendant is a partner in the business and at interview he stated that he thought that the age limit was 16 years, when in fact it is 18. This was a concern to the Trading Standards Officers as the business had joined the Service’s “Good Trader” scheme in 2008 and had been provided with all the help and information necessary to set up the required procedures to prevent under age sales from occurring. Clearly the Magistrates were similarly concerned and imposed a fine of £800 and awarded costs to the Service of £840.
Case 3
In the final case the Magistrates were informed that on 5th February 2011 the same 13 year old girl had been able to buy a “Stanley” knife from Robert Samuell and Co Ltd at Station Road in North Harrow. On this occasion the child was served by an employee who had clearly not been properly trained as he was under the impression that the age limit for a knife sale was 16 when in fact it is 18.
At interview, a representative of the Company stated that since the sale, a full training programme had been implemented together with refresher training and a refusals register.
In imposing the sentence of a £1,000 fine with costs being awarded to the Service of £1,045, the Chair of the Magistrates stated that a very serious view must be taken of any under age knife sale as knife crime itself is extremely prevalent in society particularly amongst the youth.
Bill Bilon, Head of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service, said “The sale of any age restricted product is a very serious matter and the words of the Magistrates clearly reflect this. Both knives and butane gas can seriously harm children as well as other members of society, and my officers will continue to try to educate and assist traders to prevent under age sales from occurring. In relation to Mr Walton it is clear that he did not learn from his previous conviction and I am pleased that the Magistrates have recognised that there has been a significant loss to the trade mark holder. I expect that Mr Walton will be reflecting long and hard on this chapter of his life as he completes his 240 hours of unpaid work”.
Notes for Editors –
1) It is an offence under the The Cigarette Lighter Refill (Safety) Regulations 1999 to sell these items to anyone under the age of 18. The maximum penalty which can be imposed under the Regulations is a fine of up to £5000 per offence and/or 6 months imprisonment.
2) It is an offence under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to sell a knife to anyone under the age of 18. The maximum penalty which can be imposed is a fine of up to £5000 per offence and/or 6 months imprisonment.
3) Under the Trade Marks Act 1994, it is an offence to possess for sale or sell any goods bearing marks which have not been authorised by the trade mark owner. The maximum penalty which can be imposed by the Magistrates Court is a fine of £5,000 per offence and / or up to 6 months imprisonment.
4) For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Martin on 0208 937 5533.
Market Trader Receives Community Penalty.
A stall owner who sold fake designer goods at markets was sentenced to 180 hours of unpaid work on 1 August 2011 at Harrow Crown Court.
Amit Kumar (aged 34), of Slough, pleaded guilty to three offences under the Trade Marks Act 1994 for possessing counterfeit item for sale. Among them were bags, belts, sunglasses, caps and jewellery bearing brands names such as Levis, D&G, Gucci, Hugo Boss, DKNY, Louis Vuitton, Diesel, G Star, Christian Dior, Prada and Lacoste. Had the goods been genuine, it is estimated they would have been worth over £100,000.
The court heard that Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service had worked in partnership with Surrey County Council’s Trading Standards Service gathering evidence to bring the successful prosecution following seizures of counterfeit goods from Mr Kumar at Willesden and Kempton markets between June and December 2009. Illicit goods were also seized by Surrey Trading Standards Service from a self storage facility in Slough where Mr Kumar stored his stock.
Mr Kumar initially tried to deny ownership of the stock claiming that the goods belonged to someone else or that it was old stock that he had meant to dispose of. However, at a previous court hearing in July 2011, he accepted liability pleading guilty.
Intelligence gathered about Mr Kumar revealed that he had also received a formal caution from Hounslow Trading Standards in 2006 for identical offences.
In mitigation, counsel representing Mr Kumar stated that he had now stopped selling goods at markets and was working as a courier.
Confiscation proceedings have also been started under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in order to recover the money that Mr Kumar has made as a result of the trade in illegal goods. The confiscation hearing is due to take place later on this year at Harrow Crown Court. Some of Mr Kumar’s assets have been frozen by the Trading Standards Service in order to prevent them from being dissipated prior to the confiscation hearing.
Delivering the sentence HHJ Mole sitting at Harrow Crown Court said: “You should know that these are serious offences…Unpaid work is a punishment, designed to be inconvenient…If you breach your order you will find yourself back before me and I would consider myself to have little choice but to send you to prison.”
Speaking after the case Bill Bilon, Head of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service said: “This is yet another example of a market trader who believed that he could get away with selling fake goods to the public. Despite a caution in 2006 and two seizures of counterfeit goods on different occasions, Mr Kumar was persistent and must have known of his wrong doing. This case is also a shining example of how fruitful partnership working can demonstrate not only cost savings, but also reduces Court time.”
Notes for Editors –
1) Under the Trade Marks Act 1994, it is an offence to possess for sale or sell any goods bearing marks which have not been authorised by the trade mark owner. The maximum penalty which can be imposed by the Magistrates Court is a fine of £5,000 per offence and / or up to 6 months imprisonment. In the Crown Court the maximum penalty for an offence under the Trade Marks Act 1994 is an unlimited fine and / or up to ten years imprisonment.
2) For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Legg on 020 8937 5522.
Supplier of Unsafe Charger, Charged.
On 19 July 2011 at Brent Magistrates Court, an importer of electrical goods was fined £1,500 and ordered to pay £1,460.50 costs for supplying 18,000 unsafe adaptors to national retailers and possessing over 15,000 further adaptors
which they had intended to sell.
Premier Accessory UK Limited, who traded from Carey Way, Wembley, pleaded guilty to three offences under the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994 relating to unsafe electrical adaptors. The adaptors were part of accessory kits and should have served as chargers for music players and smart phones.
The matter was brought to the attention of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service in December 2010 by Suffolk Trading Standards Service who sampled a consignment of the unsafe adaptors as they were being imported by the defendant company through the port of Felixstowe.
When the shipment arrived in Wembley, Trading Standards officers seized samples and had them tested by an electrical safety expert. He reported that the adaptors were of poor construction which could cause an electric shock, damage to electric sockets and were at risk of overheating.
Officers issued a ‘suspension notice’ prohibiting the supply of any further adaptors and instructed Premier Accessory UK Limited to recall those they had supplied to retailers.
The company’s legal representative told to the court that Premier Accessory UK Limited were partnered by an office in America who had arranged their manufacture in China. The company relied on assurances provided by their American colleagues that the adaptors were safe to supply, explaining that had the defendant company “thought the goods were defective in any sense, they would never had brought them into the UK”.
However, evidence presented to the court showed the company was in possession of two independent reports, both of which made reference to the need to have the adaptors tested to ensure they complied with the appropriate British Standards or Regulations. Despite these reports, the company did not carry out any of its own electrical testing.
Bill Bilon, Head of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards said: “The items were not aimed at the bargain end of the market and reflect the need for importers at all levels to have proper procedures in place to ensure products they are supplying are safe. Sub-standard electrical products can put you at serious risk of harm which is why legislation is in place to prevent the supply of shoddy goods.”
Notes for Editors –
1. The maximum penalty under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and Electrical Equipment (Safety)
Regulations 1994 is £5000 and/or six months imprisonment per offence.
2. For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Legg on 020 8937 5522.
Another Trader sells cigarettes to a young person
On 7 July 2011, Mr Fahid Bala, aged 23, pleaded guilty at Brent Magistrates Court to selling a packet of ten Mayfair cigarettes to a child and failing to
display both tobacco warning and his business ownership notices. He was fined £500 and ordered to pay £250 costs to Brent & Harrow Trading Standards costs.
Mr Bala of Wembley, north-west London, pleaded guilty to an offence under the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991, as amended for
supplying the cigarettes to a school girl aged 13 who was accompanied by a school boy aged 14.
The court heard that on 25 February 2011 at ‘Wembley Halal Meat’, 511 High Road, Wembley, Trading Standards officers carried out an operation using the
child volunteers to monitor the sale of age restricted goods to those below the legal age limit of 18.
The children entered the shop and asked for some cigarettes. Mr Bala who was responsible for the business having started about nine months previously,
sold them the packet of cigarettes costing £2.99 without questioning the children’s age or asking for any identification whatsoever.
Officers, who witnessed the sale taking place, noticed that the business was not displaying a tobacco warning notice which must be displayed where sold.
Mr Bala also failed to display a notice giving his name as the business owner and an address where documents could be served on him as required by the
Companies Act 2006.
Mr Bala explained to the court that he had only been selling cigarettes for two months prior to the incident and that he wasn’t paying attention at the time of the sale as the shop was busy.
He now always asks for ID, like a passport.
When passing their sentence, the magistrates’ explained they had given Mr Bala credit for his early guilty plea and the fact the shop was new to selling cigarettes.
Speaking after the case, Bill Bilon, Head of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service said: “Preventing the sale of age restricted goods to young people is a continuing priority for the service.
This defendant admitted in interview that he began to sell cigarettes because he was situated adjacent to a bus stop where lots of people would come in and ask him for cigarettes.
He knew that lots of school children used this bus stop yet failed to ask our child volunteers for ID which is totally unacceptable.
“There are numerous simple procedures businesses can adopt to prevent such sales from taking place. I would encourage any local business that sells tobacco products, alcohol, lottery tickets, or any other age restricted goods,
to join our free ‘Responsible Trader Scheme’ so we can provide them with a training DVD and support, to prevent underage sales taking place in the future.”
Notes for editors
1. For further information on this press release please contact Simon Legg on 020 8937 5522.
2. It is a criminal offence to sell cigarettes to those under the age of eighteen.
3. For more information on the work of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service please see our website at www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/brent&harrow
Wembley Market Trader Receives Community Service
A market stall owner who sold fake designer clothing at Wembley Market was sentenced on 19 July 2011 at Harrow Crown Court to 40 hours of unpaid work and ordered to pay £400 prosecution costs to the London Boroughs of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service.
Ahmet Cayir (aged 32), of Hackney, pleaded guilty to one offence under the Trade Marks Act 1994 for possessing for sale counterfeit clothing bearing the registered trade marks of brands such as: D&G, Diesel, PRADA, Ed Hardy and G-STAR.
The court heard that Brent & Harrow Trading Standards had conducted a joint operation with the Metropolitan Police, HMRC and DVLA to stop and search vehicles on route to Wembley Market.
During the operation Trading Standards officers, assisted by the police, searched the defendant’s van. As counterfeit clothing was identified in the van, the vehicle was seized by the officers.
The van contained 304 items of non branded stock and 577 branded items confirmed as counterfeit, which had an estimated retail value of £77,000 had they been legitimate.
Bill Bilon, Head of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service said “Time and time again, some traders seem to regard the sale of counterfeit goods as a victimless crime. However, it deprives legitimate businesses of the opportunity of trading on a level playing field and it is intrinsically linked to supporting the ‘black market’ economy. It is at times such as these that it is even more important that rogue traders need to be driven out as they do not make any contribution to the local or national economy”.
Notes for Editors –
1) Under the Trade Marks Act 1994, it is an offence to possess for sale or sell any goods bearing marks which have not been authorised by the trade mark owner. The maximum penalty which can be imposed by the Magistrates Court is a fine of £5,000 per offence and / or up to 6 months imprisonment. In the Crown Court the maximum penalty for an offence under the Trade Marks Act 1994 is an unlimited fine and / or up to ten years imprisonment.
2) For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Legg on 020 8937 5522.
More Time for the Crime
On 17th May 2011 His Honour Judge Snow sitting at City of Westminster Magistrates Court sentenced John Evans (aged 60) of Laughton Road, Northolt, Middlesex to two years imprisonment for non-payment of a confiscation order for £110,113. This order made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 had been secured by Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service on 2nd November 2010.
At the original confiscation hearing at Harrow Crown Court His Honour Judge Mole had ordered Mr Evans to pay the full amount within four months or face a default sentence of a further two years imprisonment. His Honour Judge Mole made it clear to Mr Evans that after the two years default sentence had been served, he would still owe the authorities the full amount with interest added to the outstanding balance.
The confiscation hearing resulted from an investigation by Brent & Harrow Trading Standards that had led to Mr Evans being sentenced in November 2009 to eight months in prison for selling fake and electrically unsafe laptop chargers from an on-line business that he was operating from premises in Rayners Lane. Evidence obtained by the Officers had shown that Mr Evans had been operating his illegal business in counterfeit Sony, Dell and other lap top chargers since 2004 which had a turnover of nearly £200,000 per year.
In making the order for the confiscation of £110,113, HHJ Mole stated that he was in no doubt that the defendant had intended to run his business so that all the profits were removed as quickly as possible to hide them from the authorities.
Speaking after the two years default sentence had been imposed Bill Bilon, Director of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service said, “This case shows that crime really doesn’t pay as the defendant has not only served time in prison for the criminal offences that he committed, but he now has to serve a further two years for refusing to pay the £110,000 that the court determined that he had made from this illegal activity. I am very pleased to see that career criminals such as Mr Evans cannot profit from their crime.”
Note for Editors:–
1. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 came into force on 24th March 2003 and allows for the removal of assets that have been acquired as a result of crime.
2. Counterfeiting is listed within Schedule 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 as a ‘criminal lifestyle’ offence. If a person is convicted of committing a Trade Marks Act offence, then they are deemed to have a criminal lifestyle, which means that investigators can go back over a six year period to calculate a benefit figure and the court can be invited to make certain assumptions about a defendant’s income, expenditure and assets.
3. For further information on this press release please contact Simon Martin on 020 8937 5533
Haul of Counterfeit & Unsafe Goods netted during Harrow Town Centre’s “Week of Action”
On Wednesday 11th May 2011, two local traders who operated out of neighbouring shops pleaded guilty at Harrow Magistrates Court to offences under the Trade Marks Act 1994 and Consumer Protection Act 1987 for selling counterfeit and unsafe mobile phone accessories.
In the first of two cases, Kawaljeet Singh Anand (aged 20) the owner of Anand Accessories was fined £2000 and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £1425 to Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service.
In the second case Farhad Naffee (aged 26) the proprietor of Euro Fashions was fined £1250 and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £1105.
The Court heard that both cases arose as part of an enforcement “Week of Action” concentrating on Harrow Town centre. During this exercise Harrow Council Regulators worked in partnership with Police and other enforcement agencies to combat crime. During these proactive inspections of neighbouring shops on St Anns Road, Trading Standards Officers discovered hundreds of counterfeit mobile phone accessories bearing the trade marks of famous manufacturers such as Nokia, Playboy, Sony Ericsson and Apple. As part of the haul mobile phone electrical chargers were also seized and, upon testing, were found to be unsafe and dangerous.
The Chair of Harrow Magistrates commented that both defendants were given credit for their early guilty pleas, but stressed that these were “serious matters” concerning the safety of consumers, damage to local businesses and loss to the trade mark owners. All the good were forfeited for destruction by the Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service.
Bill Bilon, Director of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service said, “ the safety of consumers is the number one priority for this Service, and these cases illustrate that in many instances, counterfeit goods not only distort the market place, but can also be potentially lethal to consumers.”
Notes for Editors –
1. The maximum penalty under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 is £5000 and/or six months imprisonment per offence.
2. A person guilty of an offence under the Trade Marks Act 1994 can be liable on conviction at a Magistrates Court to a fine of up to £5000 per offence and / or up to a maximum of six months imprisonment and on conviction at Crown Court to an unlimited fine and / or up to a maximum of ten years prisonment.
For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Martin on 020 8937 5533.
Brent Court Sends Explosive Message to Traders
On 12th April 2011, two separate cases involving the sale of fireworks to underage children were concluded at Brent Magistrates Court which resulted in fines totalling £2,000 and prosecution costs of £900 being awarded to the London Boroughs of Brent & Harrow.
The details of these two cases are as follows:-
Case 1. The court heard that on 2nd November 2010 undercover Trading Standards Officers, together with two fourteen year old children were conducting a series of visits in Brent to test if shops would sell the type of fireworks, which can only be sold to over eighteen year olds.
The children were able to buy three packets of rockets from Popat Stores, Ealing Road, Wembley. The sales assistant who made the sale, did so without challenging the children about their age, nor was any form of identification requested despite the fact that they were only fourteen years of age.
Officers returned to shop a short while later and informed Mr Anil Popat, of Sudbury Height Avenue, Greenford (aged 65), a partner in the business of the sale. Officers were disappointed to learn that he did not hold any training records for the seller to prove that he had received adequate training nor could he provide a log of the occasions when sales of age restricted goods to children had been refused. This was despite the fact that the business was an existing member of Brent & Harrow’s Responsible Trader Scheme, which was set up to provide retailers with the strategies that they would require to ensure that they complied with the law in relation to age restricted goods. The Responsible Trader Scheme information pack contains information on how training records should be maintained and includes copies of refusals logs which are intended for staff to detail the occasions when sales are declined to children.
In mitigation, Mr Popat explained that a member of his staff had made a mistake and that he had since introduced a prompt on the till to alert staff that the fireworks are age restricted.
In passing sentence, the Magistrates stated that an aggravating feature in this was the fact that the sale took place in the build up to Guy Fawkes night and that only a trained member of staff should be authorised to sell such products. The Magistrate added that selling rockets of the size that were sold to the two child volunteers as in this case was extremely dangerous and strongly recommended that a training register is put in place and that a refusals log is used with immediate effect.
Case 2. The court heard that on 4th November 2010 undercover Trading Standards Officers and two fourteen year old children were conducting a similar exercise in Brent to attempt to buy fireworks, which can only be sold to over eighteen year olds.
The children were able to buy a bag of rockets for £7.99 from Mini Mart News, Oxgate Court Parade, London NW2, despite having to deal with two members of staff before the transaction took place. Neither member of staff asked the children about their age or to provide any documentation to prove that they were over eighteen. During the course of the investigation, Mr Nadeem Choudry (Aged 46 of Glenwood Grove, Kingsbury), the director of the business, stated that he had trained his staff but did not have any documents to support this.
In mitigation, Mr Choudry stated that he had sacked the member of staff responsible for the sale and that he had also destroyed his remaining stock of fireworks since the incident. He added that he would not be selling fireworks in the future.
In passing sentence, the Magistrates reiterated the warning about the sale of fireworks to children and added that if children mishandled fireworks then there is the potential of injury or even death.
Bill Bilon, Head of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service, said “The sale of any age restricted product is a very serious matter and the words of the Magistrates clearly reflect this. Fireworks, whose main ingredient is gunpowder, are volatile products and have to be treated with respect, which is the main reason why their sale is restricted to consumers over 18 years of age.
Some rockets are capable of reaching speeds of up to 150 miles per hour and statistics from the National Health Service show that half of all injuries from fireworks affect children under the age of seventeen. Therefore, it is particularly important that operations and prosecutions such as these are carried out to raise awareness amongst our traders and to act as a strong deterrent for rogue traders who are intent on maximising profits at the expense of consumer protection.”
Notes for Editors –
1) It is an offence under the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2010 to sell the most common form of garden fireworks, which are ‘Category 2’, to anyone under the age of 18. The maximum penalty which can be imposed under the Regulations is a fine of up to £5000 per offence and/or 6 months imprisonment.
2) For further information on this press release, please contact Ash Shah on 0208 937 5511.
Harrow Trader Sells Fireworks to a Minor
On 13th February 2011, a local trader was given an eighteen month conditional discharge by Harrow Magistrates Court and ordered to pay prosecution costs
of £905 to the London Boroughs of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service.
Sundaralingam Parthiparajah, aged 36, of Harrow Convenience Store, Northolt Road, Harrow, received his sentence after pleading guilty to an offence under
the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2010 and the Consumer Protection Act 1987 for the sale of fireworks to a minor.
The Magistrates heard that the investigation against Mr Parthiparajah Patel arose after Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service conducted a routine
covert under age test purchasing exercise on 4th November 2010.
The child volunteers aged 13 and 14 years of age were able to purchase a pack of five Dancing Devil rockets priced at £19.98 without being asked to
provide any proof of age.
The Chair of the Magistrates explained that they had taken this case very seriously due to the strong links associated with anti social behaviour and the
potential risk to public safety. However credit had been given to Mr Parthiparajah as he had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
Speaking after the case, Bill Bilon, Head of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service said: “This case illustrates how important it is for businesses to
ensure that their staff are fully trained in the area of under age sales. I am particularly disappointed to hear that this trader has fallen foul of the law
as he has been provided with all the necessary advice and assistance to prevent sales such as these from occurring, as he is a member of the Good Trader
Scheme which is run by this Service.”
Notes to Editors
1. Under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, it is an offence to supply category 2 fireworks to persons under the age of eighteen. The maximum sentence
under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 is a £5,000 fine.
2. For more information please contact Simon Martin of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service on 020 8937 5533.
Trader left high and dry selling fake Superdry
A market stall owner who sold fake designer clothing at Wembley Market was sentenced on 12 April 2011 at Brent Magistrates Court to 200 hours of unpaid work and ordered to pay £2,000 prosecution costs to the London Boroughs of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service.
Richard John Cowles (aged 39), of New Road, Bedfordshire, pleaded guilty to four offences under the Trade Marks Act 1994 for supplying a counterfeit ‘Superdry’ hooded top for £15 and exposing or possessing for sale other items of clothing bearing brand names such as ECKO, Lyle & Scott, and the boy band ‘JLS’.
The court heard that Brent & Harrow Trading Standards had made an undercover test purchase of the Superdry hooded top the defendant the week before his stall was raided on 12 September 2010.
During the raid Trading Standards officers, assisted by the police, searched the defendant’s van and stall. Whilst the majority of stock held on Mr Cowles’ stall was identified as being genuine, officers seized approximately 150 counterfeit items which had an estimated retail value of £3,400 had they been legitimate.
Mr Cowles was arrested and then interviewed before being summonsed at a later date to appear at court.
Mr Cowles maintained throughout his hearing that although he had admitted the offences, he had tried to operate a lawful business by obtaining receipts from his suppliers. He added, “I have learnt my lessons. I realise I have to be cautious when buying these goods.”
Whilst passing sentence the Magistrates stated that they had looked carefully at the case and spent time considering their penalty. When addressing the issue of Mr Cowles’ assertion that he had tried to trade legitimately, the Magistrates stated, “It would be disingenuous that somebody who lies 25 or so times should be given credit for the five or so occasions they tell the truth.”
Bill Bilon, Head of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service said after the case: “Tackling the continuous stream of counterfeit goods from being supplied at Wembley Market is a never ending job for my officers. Mr Cowles is the fourth individual this year who has been prosecuted for selling fake items at the market and we remain as committed as ever in preventing the sale of goods that are not only misdescribed, but are also of very poor quality.”
Notes for Editors –
1) Under the Trade Marks Act 1994, it is an offence to possess for sale or sell any goods bearing marks which have not been authorised by the trade mark owner. The maximum penalty which can be imposed by the Magistrates Court is a fine of £5,000 per offence and / or up to 6 months imprisonment. In the Crown Court the maximum penalty for an offence under the Trade Marks Act 1994 is an unlimited fine and / or up to ten years imprisonment.
2) For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Legg on 020 8937 5522.
Dangerous Goods Leads to Shocking Fine!
On 4th April 2011 at Brent Magistrates Court, a wholesale company was fined £15,000 and ordered to pay £1,248.25 costs for supplying electrically unsafe extension leads and possessing over 6,000 further leads which they had intended to supply to retailers.
The company Director was also fined £5,000 and ordered to pay the same amount of costs at an earlier hearing on 15th March 2011.
Veekay Plc who traded from Genesis Business Park, Park Royal, London NW10 and its Director, Mr Vinod Kirpalani (aged 56) pleaded guilty to various offences under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 relating to electrical safety and a misdescription on the packaging which implied extension leads complied with safety regulations when in fact they were unsafe.
The matter was brought to the attention of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service in July 2010 by a consumer who had purchased an extension lead from a shop in Harlesden.
When she plugged the lead into a socket, sparks leapt out and there was a flash. As her home fuse box tripped, the consumer received an electric shock.
Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service immediately inspected the lead which showed obvious signs of poor construction. The Officer noticed that the packaging of the lead stated
‘This product complies with the UK Consumer product safety requirement for electrical products’ which clearly was not be the case given the consumer’s experience of using the product.
Officers conducted test purchases of the leads and numerous faults were identified with them. In order to curtail any other accidents caused by the faulty leads,
Officers quickly identified the supply chain and attended Veekay Plc’s head Office and warehouse who were responsible for importing them into the country. 6,000 extension leads were ‘suspended’ meaning they were impounded and could not be supplied.
However, Mr Kirpalani admitted he had already sold approximately 5,000 other leads. Officers advised Veekay Plc to issue a product recall and the company took steps to retrieve the extensions leads they had supplied receiving about 85% of them back.
Samples of the extension leads were inspected by a specialist electrical safety expert. His reports found all the poorly constructed leads were electrically unsafe
with faults that could lead to overheating and in the worst case, fire, concluding they posed a serious risk of injury to end users.
The Court heard that in July 2009, Trading Standards Officers advised Mr Kirpalani on various pieces of electrical safety legislation and issued him with written guidance on how to comply with the Regulations. Despite this, the company had not carried out any testing to ensure the items were compliant.
Bill Bilon, Head of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards said “Faulty electrical goods could cause users not only an electrical shock, but they are also a common source of accidental fires in homes. Such sub-standard products can put you and your family at serious risk which is why legislation is in place to ensure quality standards and prohibit the supply of unsafe electrical goods. I urge anybody who has a ‘Sure Secure’ branded extension lead not to use it and to dispose of it at a suitable recycling facility”.
All the unsafe extension leads including those returned after the product recall were forfeited by the Court and will now be destroyed.
Picture showing an incorrectly wired plug
Notes for Editors –
1. The maximum penalty under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 is £5000 and/or six months imprisonment per offence.
2. The maximum penalty under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 is £5000 and/or two years imprisonment per offence.
3. For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Legg on 020 8937 5522.
Pay up or its porridge for Mr Chew
A confiscation order for £269,815 was secured against a dodgy trader, Swee Teong Chew (aged 43) of Wylde Place, Palmers Green, London at Blackfriars Crown Court (24 March 2011).
HHJ Marron made the order in Mr Chew’s absence under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 which he has to pay in full, within six months.
Mr Chew was originally sentenced on 28 May 2010 to three year’s imprisonment for conspiring to commit trade mark offences in relation to proceedings that Brent & Harrow Trading Standards working with Islington Trading Standards, had put before the court.
Mr Chew went ‘on the run’ prior to his sentencing, skipping his bail and is currently wanted.
If any person knows the whereabouts of Mr Swee Teong Chew (pictured below) they should contact the Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service on 020 8937 5522 or Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.
Chew has a number of aliases including Richard Yang and Robert Chew.
Following the convictions, confiscation proceedings were started in order to recover the money that Mr Chew had made from his criminal conduct.
A Financial Investigator from the Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service used the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to expose Mr Chew’s finances.
Mr Chew’s enterprise sold counterfeit clothing and fashion accessories at retail and wholesale levels storing his goods within self storage sites across London.
When officers from Brent & Harrow Trading Standards searched Mr Chew’s retail shop at Oriental City, Edgware Road, Colindale, London, they found large quantities of fake goods and other evidence to support the illegal operation.
Islington Trading Standards also seized vast quantities of counterfeit goods which they found in self storage units, following a tip off.
Mr Chew will now have to pay the confiscation order in full or face serving the default prison sentence, which was set at three years.
Even if he serves a default prison sentence for not paying the order, he will still owe the authorities the full amount and after the order is due, interest is added to any outstanding balance.
This is not the only success that Brent & Harrow Trading Standards has had using the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Ten other confiscation orders have been secured in the past totalling £1,023,113.00.
These orders have been made against individuals who have been convicted for selling counterfeit goods and clocked cars.
Speaking after the case, Bill Bilon, Director of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service said “This case demonstrated a large scale counterfeiting operation which has now been stopped.
Although Mr Chew has gone on the run, there is a warrant for his arrest. He will at some stage, have to face the consequences of his actions by not only having to serve his prison sentence but also repaying his ill-gotten gains.
This should act as a strong deterrent for those who trade illegally.”
Note for Editors –
1. The picture above is of Mr Swee Teong Chew and anyone with information as to his whereabouts should contact Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111 or Trading Standards on 020 8937 5522.
2. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 came into force on 24th March 2003 and allows for the removal of assets that have been acquired as a result of crime.
3. Counterfeiting is listed within Schedule 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 as a ‘criminal lifestyle’ offence. If a person is convicted of committing a Trade Marks Act offence,
then they are deemed to have a criminal lifestyle, which means that investigators can go back over a six year period to calculate a benefit figure and the court can be invited to make certain assumptions about a defendant’s income, expenditure and assets.
4. For further information on this press release please contact Simon Legg on 020 8937 5522
Photograph of Mr Swee Teong Chew
Safety Hat Manufacturer receives ‘Hard Hitting’ fine
On the 29th March 2011 Powerbox International Limited were fined £2,500, and ordered to pay full costs of £1821.50 and a £15 Victim surcharge for supplying unsafe personal protective equipment.
The company were investigated by Brent and Harrow Trading Standards officers after hard hats they had test purchased failed prescribed safety tests.
The court heard that on 28th January 2010, an undercover Trading Standards Officer test purchased six ‘Sliverline’ hard hats costing £6.99 each from a local retailer in Wembley.
These hats were submitted to a specialist laboratory for detailed assessment to ensure they complied with the necessary safety regulations. An expert at the laboratory identified that the hats failed certain essential safety tests with respect to the protection the hard hats gave against high velocity impacts.
As this would have been the main intention of the hard hats, the failures were regarded as very serious.
Trading Standards Officers traced back the supply chain for the hard hats which identified ‘Silverline’ was a trading and brand name of the defendant company who imported the hats into the country having commissioned their manufacture in China.
During the Trading Standards Service’s investigation, Powerbox International Limited revealed that they had only tested the hats on one occasion back in 2002. The company had not carried out any further checks to ensure the hats were meeting the required legal safety standards since then, despite supplying over 14,000 hats in 2009/10.
In mitigation the company solicitor stated, “The company recognises it is imperative these hats provide the protection for which they are designed and regrets that this product failed the required tests”.
He went on to explain the company had recently appointed a Quality Manager to audit the company’s manufacturers, their suppliers, product technical files and to do onsite testing saying, “lessons learnt [from this matter] have reformed the way the company is organised and operated”.
Bill Bilon, Director of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service said “People purchase ‘Personal Protective Equipment’ such as hard hats to guard themselves from foreseeable injury in environments where the absence of such equipment would render injury very likely. It is therefore extremely disturbing that a company who leads in the tooling industry, was supplying hats failing to offer safety protection which would have been the exact reason for a user to wear one. Any DIYer or site worker would not have been protected by these hats.
We will continue to monitor such products to ensure they do exactly what they say on the tin – protect people”.
Photograph of Hard Hats
Notes for Editors –
1) It is an offence under the Personal Protective Equipment Regulations 2002 to offer to supply, or supply, Personal Protective Equipment which are unsafe by virtue that they fail to comply with specific clauses of European Standard EN 397:1995.
The maximum penalty which can be imposed under the Personal Protective Equipment Regulations is a fine of up to £5000 per offence and / or 3 months imprisonment.
2) For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Legg on 0208 937 5522.
Copyrighter Wronged!
On 29th March 2011, Mr Munusamy Selvamani and the company for whom he is director; Indian Home Food and Beverages Limited, were fined a total of £600 and ordered to pay £1,000 costs to the London Boroughs of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service.
Mr Selvamini (age 62), of Uxbridge Road, Slough, along with his company, pleaded guilty to 4 offences each under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 and the Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008.
The matter came to the Trading Standards Service’s attention after the Performing Rights Society (PRS for Music), had carried out various spot checks at business in Brent to check if they were playing music, and if they were, whether they had a licence to do so.
The PRS for Music manages songwriters and composers copyright all over the world granting legal permission on behalf of members to use their copyright music in return for royalties.
The Court heard that visits had been made to the defendant’s two Indian restaurants, Thiriveni of 10 Ealing Road, Wembley and Sanghamam of 531 High Road, Wembley who were playing music containing copyright material which they were not licensed to do.
Despite three advisory visits to each of the restaurants, Mr Selvamini had failed to apply for a licence permitting his company to play music. In August 2010, Trading Standards Officers returned to the businesses with a PRS Investigator who immediately recognised copyright sound recordings being played.
Having seized the offending copyright material, staff in the restaurants were unable to tell Trading Standards Officers who the business owner was and no notice had displayed at either restaurant detailing this information as required by the Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008.
Speaking after the case, Bill Bilon, Head of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards said: “We will always seek to work with businesses to ensure they understand and achieve compliance with the law. However, when this advice is continually ignored, we will have no hesitation in taking legal action. I believe this is the first prosecution of its kind in the country but breaching copyright is a form of theft that must be taken seriously. This case typifies the innovative work my Officers carry out”
A spokesperson for PRS for Music stated, ““PRS for Music is happy to support Brent &Harrow Trading Standards in their work protecting our members’ copyright. The writers and composers we represent depend on royalties to earn a living and we work hard to ensure they can continue to do that. Court action is always a last resort, but is sometimes necessary to ensure creators can continue to earn a living.”
Notes for Editors-
1. The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 creates criminal offences if a person did cause a sound recording to be played in a public place, when they knew or had reason to believe that copyright would be infringed.
2. The Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008 creates an offence for Limited companies who fail to disclose their registered office details at business establishments available for inspection.
3. For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Legg on 020 8937 5522
Sale of Shisha pipe (with Tobacco) to children
On the 29th March 2011, at Brent Magistrates Court, Mr Abdul Al-Khamisi, a Shisha Café owner, was fined £650 and ordered to pay full costs of £1,070 for selling a Shisha pipe to a minor; the prosecution being brought by Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service.
The sale of the Shisha pipe came about as part of a routine operation conducted by Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Officers, assisted by child volunteers, in August 2010.
Two schoolgirls, aged 13 and 15 respectively, were able to successfully purchase the Shisha pipe, whilst being observed in the premises by several Trading Standards officers. Mr Abdul Al-Khamisi, the sole director of the limited company that operated the café business, named Elissa Café, at 16, The Broadway, Preston Road, Wembley, Middlesex, HA9 8JT, was present in the premises alone and himself made the sale to the two minors.
Al-Khamisi plead guilty to all four offences against him, including the one for selling the Shisha pipe to the children, which was contrary to the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991. The other offences related to an incorrect health warning labelled Shisha pipe, and the failures to display a tobacco notice and a business ownership details notice.
These further offences were contrary to the Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008, Consumer Protection Act 1987 and Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991.
In mitigation, Abdul Al-Khamisi explained to the court that he was no longer trading as a Shisha Café at the premises, had some language difficulties and was unfamiliar with the UK law. The court merely commented that they had given him credit for an early plea of guilt.
Speaking after the conclusion of the prosecution, Bill Bilon, Director of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service said, “Shisha Cafes are now regulalrly opening in large numbers across the UK. Where the products that these cafés are selling contain tobacco, the same rules and laws apply as with conventional tobacco products, such as cigarettes. As well as the requirement to be correctly labelled with the appropriate health warnings, the tobacco sale age limit of 18 years also still applies.
My officers will continue, as we have now for many years, routinely attempting to test purchase age restricted products, such as tobacco, in order to ensure that Brent & Harrow businesses are complying with the law, and where appropriate, we will prosecute businesses who do sell tobacco to our children”.
Notes for Editors –
1) It is an offence under the Section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 as amended, by virtue of Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991 to sell a tobacco product to a person under the age of 18.
The maximum penalty which can be imposed under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 is a fine of up to £5000 per offence and / or 3 months imprisonment????
2) It is an offence contrary to Section 4(1) of the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991 not to display a Tobacco notice regarding the age limit within a premises where tobacco products are sold.
3) Where a tobacco product is not correctly labelled with the appropriate health warnings this is an offence contrary to regulation 14 (1) of the Tobacco Products (Manufacture, Presentation and Sale) (Safety) Regulations 2002, contrary to section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
4) Where a business does not correctly display within its premises a notice of its ownership this is an offence contray to Section 10 of the Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008.
5) For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Martin on on 0208 937 5533.
Seizure of thousands of illegal satellite decoders
On Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Sudbury Safer Neighbourhoods Team in conjunction with Brent Trading standards, the premier league and Sky TV executed a search warrant under the trades description act at an address in Barham Close, Sudbury.
The warrant was obtained by Brent Trading standards in relation to illegal satellite decoder cards. At the same time a business premises connected to this address was also searched in Willesden Lane, Kilburn by Mapesbury Safer Neighbourhoods Team.
The searches resulted in two suspects being arrested for fraud related matters and thousands of illegal satellite decoders, counterfeit clothing and cash being seized. They have been bailed pending enquiries.
Sergeant Pete Goodchild from Sudbury Safer Neighbourhoods Team said: "This was an excellent piece of partnership working between two Safer Neighbourhoods Teams wards, Brent council and other outside agencies. We will continue to reduce crime on Sudbury Ward and improve the standard of life for the residents of Brent."
Press Release issued by Metropolitan Police on 25 March 2011
Contact: Jo Cavell, Press Office Brent, Telephone: 020 8733 3085, Fax 020 8733 3089
Trader makes a costly Ghaff
On 1 March 2011, a Wembley Market trader was sentenced to 100 hours of unpaid community work by Brent Magistrates Court and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £1,499 to the London Boroughs of Brent and Harrow Trading Standard Service.
Mr Sajjad Ghaffar, aged 42, of Aviary Close, Canning Town, London, had previously pleaded guilty to 11 offences under The Trade Marks Act 1994 for selling and exposing for sale fake branded clothing from Wembley Market.
He also admitted two further offences which the court was asked to take into consideration relating to the sale of counterfeit goods from Kempton Park Market that had been investigated by Surrey County Council Trading Standards department.
The court heard the prosecution against Mr Ghaffar arose following a search of his stall at Wembley Market on 12 September 2010 as part of a joint operation between Brent and Harrow Trading Standards and officers from the Metropolitan Police Tactical Support Group.
As a result of the search of the defendant’s stall and his van, Trading Standards Officers seized 2146 counterfeit items bearing the registered trade marks of well known brands such as Lacoste, Nike, Adidas, Ben Sherman, Fred Perry Lyle and Scott & Superdry.
Had the goods been genuine, they would have been worth over £120,000.
Mr Ghaffar was arrested at the scene and found to have £1,256 cash which was also seized. This money has now been forfeited by the court from Mr Ghaffar along all the items of clothing that were seized from him.
When questioned about the goods, Mr Ghaffar admitted knowing that some of items were counterfeit and that what he was doing was illegal, but he had continued to sell them because he needed the money.
The defendant’s legal representative said in mitigation that Mr Ghaffar was “deeply remorseful” for his actions.
Bill Bilon, Head of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service said, “This is yet another example of a Wembley Market trader who believed that he could get away with selling fake goods to the public.
However, the joint operation conducted by my officers and the police has put a stop to his illegal activities. I hope that this case serves as a warning to anyone who is involved in the sale of counterfeit goods that they will be prosecuted and, if found guilty, will be fined or sent to prison."
Notes for Editors –
1) For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Legg on 020 8937 5522
2) For more information on the work of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service please see our website at www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/brent&harrow
Not using his loaf costs a baker lots of dough!
On 2nd February 2011, Evinda Limited, trading as ‘Broadway Food and Wine’ and it’s Director, Mr Suleyman Cagin, aged 45, were fined a total of £2000 by Harrow Magistrates Court and ordered to pay a further £952 in prosecution costs to the London Boroughs of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service.
The court heard that the prosecution arose following a routine weights and measures inspection by Trading Standards Officers to check whether the defendant company was complying with its legal obligations which requires that loaves of bread can only be sold in multiples of 400 grams.
During the visit to the defendant’s bakery at 89 – 91 Burnt Oak Broadway, Burnt Oak, the Officers weighed forty-eight 800 gram bloomers. The law recognises that, over time, a certain amount of weight will be lost, but dictates that none of the 800 gram loaves should be less than 770 grams. The inspection showed that every loaf was below weight and that the average weight per loaf was 670 grams which represented a staggering 17% shortfall.
Having pleaded guilty to all the offences the company and its Director, Suleyman Cagin, informed the court that the loaves were short weight because they had employed a new baker and that there had been a lack of communication between the staff on different shifts.
After the hearing, Bill Bilon, Head of Trading Standards for the London Boroughs of Brent and Harrow said, “This case demonstrates that business must make sure that appropriate processes and procedures are in place to avoid these types of offences from being committed. In the current financial climate, particularly in light of the increasing cost of raw materials, some traders may attempt to increase their profit margins by selling underweight goods to consumers. Therefore, it is increasingly important that the public are not short changed and receive exactly what they have paid for. This Service will not hesitate in instituting legal proceedings in cases where the interests of consumers and legitimate businesses are being harmed”.
Notes for editors
1. For further information on this press release please contact Simon Martin or Sanjay Thakrar on 020 8937 5533 or 020 8937 5526.
2. The legislation prohibiting the sale of short weight food is The Weights and Measures (Packaged Goods) Regulations 2006, and implemented by the European Communities Act 1972. The Act carries a maximum fine of £5000.
3. To make a complaint about a trader in the boroughs of Brent and Harrow whom you suspect of short changing consumers, please can call Trading Standards on 020 8937 5555.
More information on the work of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service please see our website at www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/brent&harrow
On-Line Trader Fined
On 4th February 2011, a local trader was fined £2500 by Brent Magistrates Court and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £2020 to the London Boroughs of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service.
Jayesh Patel, aged 39, of The Avenue, Wembley, received his sentence after pleading guilty to a total of five offences under The Trade Marks Act 1994 and the Consumer Protection Act 1987 for selling counterfeit mobile telephone accessories and unsafe chargers.
The Magistrates heard that the investigation against Mr Patel arose after Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service received a complaint from a member of the public regarding a counterfeit Nokia mobile telephone battery that he had purchased from the defendant’s Ebay ‘shop’. As part of their investigation Trading Standards Officers test purchased a Nokia battery from the defendant’s Ebay site where he attempted to pass himself off as a trader of genuine goods by issuing the following warning to prospective customers:-
‘BRAND NEW 100% GENUINE NOKIA BATTERY’ ……..‘PLEASE BE CAREFUL OF BUYING NON GENUINE FAKE COPIES, IF THE PRICE SEEMS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE THEN IT OFTEN IS. THIS ITEM IS GUARANTEED TO BE 100% GENUINE AND AUTHENTIC. AVOID CHEAP FAKES THAT WILL DAMAGE YOUR PHONE.’
This culminated in warrants being executed at his home address and at the two florists’ shops that he owns. As a result of the search at the business situated at 366 High Road, NW10, a large quantity of mobile telephone accessories and chargers were seized.
The seized goods, which included Nokia, Blackberry and Apple accessories, were subsequently examined by their respective representatives who confirmed that they were all counterfeit.
The telephone chargers were submitted for testing to a safety expert who reported that they were not constructed in accordance with British Standards and were dangerous as they could overheat and put potential users at risk from electrical shock.
During the hearing the court heard that between May 2009 and September 2010, the approximate value of sales from the defendant’s Ebay account amounted to just under £8,000.
In mitigation, Mr Patel stated that he had asked for genuine products from a manufacturer based in China and had presumed that the goods were authentic as his supplier was also providing similar goods to other British customers.
Speaking after the case, Bill Bilon, Head of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service said: “This case illustrates how important it is for businesses to ensure that the goods that they are selling are not counterfeit or unsafe. It is generally thought that counterfeiting is a victimless crime, but there have been cases of serious injuries and even fatalities from using fake goods which had not been constructed in accordance with our safety standards. The law quite rightly places a duty on businesses to ensure that the public are not put at risk from dangerous products and my advice to anyone thinking of importing anything into this country is to make sure that they have thoroughly researched all the necessary aspects of the goods, including their authenticity and safety.”
Notes to Editors
1. Under the Trade Marks Act 1994, it is an offence to possess for sale or sell any goods bearing marks which have not been authorised by the registered trade mark owners. The maximum sentence that a Magistrates Court can impose is 6 months imprisonment and/or £5,000 fine.
2. Under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, it is an offence to supply or offer to supply unsafe goods. The maximum sentence under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 is a £5,000 fine.
3. For more information please contact Ash Shah of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service on 020 8937 5511.
Dangerous Imported Goods
On Wednesday 22nd December 2010 at Harrow Magistrates court, an importer was fined £1765 and ordered to pay £2088 costs within 28 days,
together with a forfeiture order for 12,000 electrically unsafe travel adaptors.
Sork Limited, of Nuffield Road, St Ives, Cambs pleaded guilty to one offence under the Consumer protection Act 1987 concerning the
importation and sale in excess of 50,000 units to a wholesaler in Wembley, who in turn had sold these items to a second wholesaler, and
then on to a retailer in the Harrow area.
The matter arose as a result of a routine test purchase of the adaptor and subsequent submission to an expert for examination and
testing. The expert confirmed that the item was unsafe and the failures related to protection against electric shock, construction of the
plug and construction of the socket part.
Investigators found that out of the original 50,000 units only 12,000 units remained and these units were suspended under the provisions
of the Consumer protection Act 1987 until the matter was concluded in court. The magistrates heard that the importer had carried out no
safety assessment of the product prior to releasing them in the supply chain despite being aware of a requirement to do so.
A recall will now be instigated by the wholesaler and the offending items destroyed.
Bill Bilon, Director of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service said in relation to the safety case that, “These serious safety
failings are a major concern. Unsafe goods such as these adaptors are not produced to the same safety standards as required in this country
and have serious safety implications. Traders have a duty to ensure that products that are imported go through safety testing through an
accredited test house to ensure European safety standards are met prior to allowing the products into the supply chain. I applaud the
vigilance of my officers and the swift action that was taken in order to protect consumers”.
Counterfeit Vodka
On 22nd December 2010 a local retailer of two businesses in Harrow Weald was fined £515 and ordered to pay £1628 in costs. The
magistrates also ordered the seized bottles to be forfeited.
Nadanapatham Anpalagan of Scott Gardens, Hounslw, Middlesex, operates two businesses trading as Harney Wine and Palmers from addresses
on Weald Lane, Harrow, HA3 5ES. He pleaded guilty to two offences under the Trade Marks Act 1994.
The court heard that in May 2010 a consumer purchased a bottle of Glens Vodka and upon reaching home she poured herself a drink. However
she noticed a strange smell from the drink so she returned to the shop and spoke to the shop Manager. A refund was offered but the consumer
wanted the remaining bottle removed from sale but the Manager refused. She complained to Trading Standards and subsequently officers
visited the shops where they found that the items were still on sale despite the consumer complaint. Officers found 18 bottles of
counterfeit Vodka on sale, and independent analysis confirmed this fact.
The trader was unable to provide pertinent invoices for his purchases and alleged that he had obtained stocks from large multiple cash
and carry’s, however enquiries revealed that this was not the case, and the counterfeit bottles were likely to have been purchased from
door to door sellers.
Bill Bilon, Director of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards, said “There is a big problem with off license shops selling counterfeit
alcohol in the London and South East area. Retailers are sourcing these items from unscrupulous sellers at a cheaper price but will
generally sell them on to the public at the usual retail price. This Service will not tolerate traders who purchase these items to boost
their profits and possibly risk public health, and such traders will be apprehended swiftly and processed through the courts.”
Counterfeit Clothing
On 22nd December 2010 Mr El Amri, aged 49, trading as La Moda House, was sentenced to 180 hours of unpaid community work by Harrow
Magistrates and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £1890 to the London Boroughs of Brent and Harrow Trading Standard Service.
Abdessamad El Amri of Brent Park Road, Barnet, had previously pleaded guilty to offences under The Trade Marks Act 1994 for supplying
and offering to supply over 170 items of counterfeit clothing. The clothing all displayed famous brands including Stone Island, Lacoste,
Ralph Lauren and D&G and had the goods of been genuine they would have had a retail value of approximately £13,000.
The court heard that Mr El Amri was openly selling the fake goods from his high street shop La Moda House, 113 Burnt Oak Broadway,
Harrow. A test purchase was conducted by a Trading Standards Officer in December 2009 of a Stone Island jacket and Lacoste jumper costing a
total of £25. These were later confirmed as being counterfeit and a raid of the shop ensued.
Whilst passing sentence the court commented on Mr El Amri’s unwillingness to assist Trading Standards, after he had provided them with
false details.
Bill Bilon, Director of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards said in relation to the counterfeit clothing case that “this was a flagrant
breach of the legislation as the goods were being openly sold from the defendants shop. Consumers have the right to expect that goods that
they purchase are genuine, and competing traders have a right to a fair trading environment”.
Notes for Editors –
1. The maximum penalty under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 is £5000 and/or six months imprisonment per offence.
2. Supplying, or offering to supply such goods creates offences under the Trade Marks Act 1994, which has a maximum penalty of £5000
and/or six months imprisonment per offence in the Magistrates Court.
3. For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Martin on 020 8937 5533.
Market Trader Prosecuted
On 21st December 2010, a market trader operating from Church Road, Willesden was fined £580 Brent Magistrates Court and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £1400 to the London Boroughs of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service.
Colin Ashley Webber, aged 40 pleaded guilty to twelve offences under The Trade Marks Act 1994 for selling and having in possession for the purposes of supply, counterfeit clothing from Church Road Market, Willesden.
The Magistrates heard that the investigation arose after the Trading Standards Service conducted a series of undercover test purchases from his stall
in Church Road Market in the run up to Christmas during November and December 2009.
This culminated in a joint operation between the Police and Trading Standards at the Market where Mr Webber’s stall was searched amd a large quantity of clothing was seized from his stall and van.
Following this, Mr Webber was arrested and interviewed under caution at Wembley Police Station.
The court heard that the approximate sale value of his goods was just under £9,000 but that the loss to industry was estimated to be over £41,000.
Mr Webber said that he was very sorry for breaking the law. In passing sentence, the Magistrates gave him credit for his early guilty plea.
Speaking after the case, Bill Bilon, Head of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service said: “Time and time again, traders seem to regard the sale of counterfeit goods as a victimless crime. However, this type of activity is intrinsically linked to supporting the ‘black market economy’. This in turn has an effect on the amount of taxes these traders pay to support our national economy. It is at times such as these that rogues need to be driven out so that they can make a meaningful
contribution and help boost our country instead of depriving legitimate businesses of the opportunity of trading on a level playing field.”
Notes to Editors
1. Under the Trade Marks Act 1994, it is an offence to possess for sale or sell any goods bearing marks which have not been authorised by the registered trade mark owner.
2. The maximum sentence that a court may impose under the Trade Marks Act 1994 is 10 years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
3. For more information please contact Ash Shah of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service on 020 8937 5511.
Underage Cigarette sale Case
On 7 December 2010, Mr Darren Jules, aged 29, pleaded guilty at Brent Magistrates Court to selling a packet of Mayfair cigarettes to children. He was fined £100 and ordered to pay £250 costs to Brent & Harrow Trading Standards costs.
Mr Jules of Aylands Close, Wembley, pleaded guilty to an offence under the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991 as amended for supplying the cigarettes to two school boys aged 13 and 14 from his shop trading as ‘The Kiosk’ located within Willesden Green tube station.
The court heard that on 2 June 2010, Trading Standards Officers were carrying out an operation using the child volunteers to monitor the sale of age restricted goods to those below the legal age limit of 18. The children entered the shop and asked for some cigarettes. The defendant waited for others in the shop to leave before going ahead with the sale without asking the youngsters for any identification or questioning their age.
Mr Jules explained to the court that he was the owner of the business having started trading in April 2010. He stated that he wasn’t properly paying attention at the time of the sale, and that now he has had to hand the shop back to the landlord and is currently unemployed.
The magistrates gave Mr Jules credit for his early guilty plea and that noted that on a subsequent undercover Trading Standards test purchase, no sale was made, acknowledging Mr Jules had realised the error of his ways.
Speaking after the case, Bill Bilon, Head of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service said, “Preventing the sale of age restricted goods to young people is a continuing priority for the Service. There are numerous simple procedures that businesses can adopt to prevent such sales from taking place. I would encourage any local business that sells tobacco products, alcohol, lottery tickets, videos or any other age restricted goods, to join our free ‘Responsible Trader Scheme’ so we can provide them a training DVD and support, to prevent such sales taking place to under age children.”
Notes for editors
1. For further information on this press release please contact Simon Legg on 020 8937 5522.
2. It is a criminal offence to sell cigarettes to those under the age of eighteen.
3. For more information on the work of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service please see our website at www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/brent&harrow
The Good, the Bad and the ‘Ugg’
On 7 December 2010, Mr Obaidullah Rahmatullah, aged 19, was sentenced to 200 hours of unpaid community work and ordered to serve a curfew between 20.00-06.00hrs for the next six weeks by Brent Magistrates. In addition, Mr Rahmatullah has also been ordered to pay prosecution costs of £1,642 to the London Boroughs of Brent and Harrow Trading Standard Service.
The defendant of Lynford Gardens, Ilford, had previously pleaded guilty to four offences under The Trade Marks Act 1994 for possessing fake Ugg branded boots and flipflops which he intended to sell at Wembley Market. He also pleaded guilty to two offences under safety regulations as he intended to supply fake GHD hair straightener sets which were electrically unsafe posing a risk of an electric shock to anybody who used them.
The court heard that on Sunday 25 April 2010, as part of a multi-agency operation code named ‘Capital’, Trading Standards officers, police from the local Tokyngton Safer Neighbourhood Team, Her Majesty’s Customs and Revenue (HMRC) and the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) officers, stopped a number vehicles at a road block near the entrance to Wembley Market.
During this exercise, HMRC officers checked traders for tax evasion or for fraudulently claiming benefits and VOSA, inspected vehicles for their roadworthiness.
Mr Rahmatullah was stopped and Trading Standards Officers discovered the van he was travelling in was loaded with 540 pairs of Ugg boots, 34 pairs of Ugg flip flops and eight hair straightener sets, all of which were fake. A more detailed search of the van revealed 275 Ugg branded heel labels which were similar to those applied during the manufacturing process of a genuine pair of the boots.
The items, with an estimated retail value of £83,000 had they been genuine, were seized and later submitted for expert examination by representatives of the trade mark proprietors and an electrical safety expert.
During July 2010, Mr Rahmatullah was questioned about the goods. He admitted to sticking the heel labels onto plain boots to make them look like Ugg boots so customers would buy them. He claimed that he was selling the stock on behalf of somebody called Jay who he was going to buy the goods from, but was unable to provide any contact details for him.
The defendant’s barrister said in mitigation that “He [Mr Rahmatullah] has never been in trouble. It’s been an awful experience for somebody who was of previous good character and this has been hanging over him for months”.
When delivering their sentence, the Magistrates stated to Mr Rahmatullah that he had committed very serious offences. However, having considered his previous good character, remorse and early guilty plea, he had narrowly missed a custodial sentence. The Magistrates agreed to the forfeiture of all the items seized from Mr Rahmatullah.
Bill Bilon, Head of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service said, “This is now the fourth successful prosecution resulting from ‘Operation Capital’. Stall holders really must take care with what they are intending to sell from Wembley Market because if they are caught with counterfeit goods, they will be prosecuted and face harsh penalties. In addition, as in this case, being brought before the Courts can cause embarrassment and shame amongst your peers as well as affecting further educational and employment prospects."
Notes for Editors –
1) For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Legg on 020 8937 5522
2) For more information on the work of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service please see our website at www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/brent&harrow
Trader Fined for ‘Meddling’ in Counterfeit Goods
On 30 November 2010, an illegal street trader caught selling fake football t-shirts outside Wembley Stadium following the England -v- Mexico football match was fined £350 by Brent Magistrates Court and ordered to pay £300 in prosecution costs to the London Boroughs of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service.
Simon Thomas Meddle, aged 49, of Surbiton Road, Southend, pleaded guilty to an offence under the Trade Marks Act 1994 for selling t-shirts bearing the official South African FIFA World Cup emblem to fans leaving Wembley Stadium after the England match in May 2010.
The court heard that Mr Meddle was a regular street trader during events at Wembley Stadium and dealt in merchandise such as scarves, flags and t- shirts. In the past he had received a warning from Trading Standards Officers after they had seized counterfeit flags from him and he had also been prosecuted on two separate occasions by Brent Council’s Health Safety & Licensing team for unlicensed street trading.
On the day of this particular incident the defendant had been apprehended before the start of the match by officers for selling scarves in the vicinity of the stadium which had all been sized from him. Nevertheless, undeterred by the earlier seizure, Mr Meddle returned after the game had finished with a stock of counterfeit FIFA World Cup t-shirts which he was intending to sell to fans leaving the stadium.
The court was told that various attempts had been made to interview the defendant with respect to the counterfeit t-shirts but he failed to keep any of his appointments with the Trading Standards Service.
In court, Mr Meddle stated that he had picked up the wrong bag and didn’t know that the counterfeit shirts were inside. He added: “I didn’t go out to sell copyrighted goods. I know that I’m not meant to be there.”
Speaking after the case, Bill Bilon, Head of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards said: “I hope that this case sends a clear message to others that Brent Council will not hesitate in taking action against anyone who thinks that they can come to Wembley Stadium and make a quick buck by selling counterfeit goods or from illegal street trading. We regularly carry out patrols and spot checks in partnership with our Health, Safety & Licensing colleagues to stop these types of activities and to ensure that it does not blight Wembley’s reputation as being the most famous football stadium in the world.”
Notes for Editors-
1. The Trade Marks Act 1994 creates criminal offences if a person sells, offers to sell or possesses for supply, counterfeit goods and a breach of this Act could result in an unlimited fine and or up to ten years imprisonment.
2. For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Legg on 020 8937 5522
Traders Find That Age Does Matter
Two Harrow businesses paid the price at Harrow Magistrate’s Court on 3rd November 2010 for selling age restricted products to children without making any checks to verify their ages.
CASE 1
In the first case, Mr Prabhulal Shah (aged 64), the managing partner of Pinner Village Store, 49 Bridge Street, Pinner, was fined £400 and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £600 for selling a knife to a 13 year old boy.
During the hearing, the court heard that the offence arose on 18 August 2010 during a test purchasing exercise that the Trading Standards Service were conducting with two volunteers to assess whether knives were being sold to children below the statutory age of 18 .
Despite the fact that the shop operates a policy to challenge anyone who looks under 21, the 13 year old boy was not questioned when he approached the counter to pay for a large carving knife. However, Mr Shah, who has 20 years experience in the retail business, said to the 15 year old girl that he was selling the knife to her without questioning her age and despite the fact that the whole transaction was carried out by the younger child.
When he was later questioned by Trading Standards Officers, Mr Shah was adamant that the girl looked old enough which said was why he had not asked her age even though she was with another child who was obviously too young to buy a knife.
CASE 2
In the second case, Mrs Jayalakshmi Nagarajan (aged 42), the personal licence holder and owner of J Mini Mart, 11 Station Parade, Kenton Lane, Kenton, was fined £200 and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £300 to the London Boroughs of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service after her employee sold four large cans of beer to a 15 year old boy.
The volunteer was assisting Trading Standards Officers in a routine operation to test shops who sell age restricted products.
Despite the fact that it is illegal to sell alcohol to anyone under the age of 18 and the shop’s policy to challenge anyone who looks under 21 to prove their age, the 15 year old boy was not questioned when he approached the counter to purchase the cans of lager.
When she was later questioned by Trading Standards Officers it emerged that the employee who made the sale was himself only 18 and had worked at the shop for just one month. At the time of the sale he was alone in the shop, which was also a breach of a licensing condition.
Bill Bilon, Head of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service said after the cases, “I hope that these cases send a clear message to those involved in the sale of age restricted goods that they cannot take anything for granted and must remain vigilant at all times to prevent children being exposed to dangers associated with these products or face prosecution. Even in these challenging times facing local government, this Service remains as committed as ever to prohibiting the sale of age restricted goods to underage children to ensure that consumers are not being subjected to the anti social behaviour which results when alcohol or other similar products fall into the wrong hands. My officers are continuing to carry out a planned series of checks on all businesses in the borough throughout the year to ensure compliance.”
“We are still offering support to local businesses by providing them training and guidance with respect to under age sales when they sign up to our ‘Responsible Trader’ scheme. Businesses who would like information about this free to join scheme should call the Trading Standards Service on 020 8937 5555 (option 2).”
Notes for Editors –
1. Under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 it is an offence to sell a knife to a person under 18 years of age. The maximum penalty which can be imposed by the Magistrates Court is a fine of £5,000.
2. Under the Licensing Act 2003, it is an offence to sell, or allow the sale of alcohol to an individual aged under 18. The maximum penalty which can be imposed by the Magistrates Court is a fine of £5,000.
3. For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Martin on 0208 937 5533.
Ahmed Safi convicted for possession of fakes
On 9 November 2010, Mr Ahmed Safi, aged 30, was sentenced to 200 hours of unpaid community work by Brent Magistrates Court and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £250 to the London Boroughs of Brent and Harrow Trading Standard Service.
Ahmed Safi of Braintree Road, Dagenham, had previously pleaded guilty to three offences under The Trade Marks Act 1994 for possessing fake trainers and socks which he intended to sell at Wembley Market.
The court also ordered forfeiture of the nearly 360 items made up of trainers and socks as well as Mr Safi’s Renault Espace motorcar which he had used to transport the haul of fake stock.
The court heard that on the morning of Sunday 25 April 2010, as part of multi agency operation code named ‘Capital’, Trading Standards officers, police from the local Tokyngton Safer Neighbourhood Team, Her Majesty’s Customs and Revenue (HMRC) and the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) officers, stopped a number vehicles at a road block near the entrance to Wembley Market.
During this exercise, HMRC officers checked traders for tax evasion or for fraudulently claiming benefits and VOSA, inspected vehicles for their roadworthiness.
Mr Safi was stopped after a Trading Standards Officer spotted his car loaded with fake Nike and Prada trainers as he was on route to Wembley Market.
The goods were seized which had they been genuine, would have been worth in the region of £27,000. Mr Safi initially provided officers with a false name which resulted in him being arrested and taken back to Wembley Police station.
When questioned about the goods in his car he stated that he was selling them on behalf of his cousin who was going to pay him £50. However, Mr Safi was unable to provide any contact details for his cousin.
Mr Safi maintained that it was his first time that he had been to the market to trade but the officers discovered that this was not the case as Wendy Fair Markets Limited, who are the operators of Wembley Market, produced an application form in his name which was dated December 2006.
The defendant’s solicitor stated during the hearing that the admissions made during her client’s interview could not be relied upon. She added that Mr Safi had given a false name in panic and was remorseful for his actions.
In passing sentence, the Magistrates stated the seriousness of the offence had been aggravated by the false details that he had provided to the officers.
Bill Bilon, Head of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service said, “This is now the third successful case resulting from ‘Operation Capital’ and demonstrates the tough line that we take against those involved in the sale of counterfeit goods. Once convicted these offenders face having a criminal record and receive an appropriate punishment from the Courts, including the forfeiture of their stock and vehicles. In some cases, we can even confiscate the assets of those who are convicted of fake goods. I hope that these prosecutions send a clear message to those involved in the sale of illicit goods that it just isn’t worth it as this Service will use all its resources to prevent the sale of counterfeit goods."
Notes for Editors –
1) Under the Trade Marks Act 1994, it is an offence to possess for sale or sell any goods bearing marks which have not been authorised by the trade mark owner. The maximum penalty which can be imposed by the Magistrates Court is a fine of £5,000 per offence and / or up to six months imprisonment. In the Crown Court the maximum penalty for an offence under the Trade Marks Act 1994 is an unlimited fine and / or up to ten years imprisonment.
2) For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Legg on 020 8937 5522
Rogue Car Clamper Fined
On 2nd November 2010, a car clamper was sentenced by Brent Magistrates Court to 16 weeks imprisonment (suspended for 18 months), fined £500 and ordered to carry out 120 hours unpaid work.
In addition to this, he was ordered to pay prosecution costs of £2,575.50 to the London Boroughs of Brent &Harrow Trading Standards Service and a further £1,051 in compensation to his victims.
Lee Ray Peacock, aged 44, Director of Regional Clamping Services Ltd, pleaded guilty to two offences under The Fraud Act 2006 for allowing his company to continue trading despite the fact it had been wound up by the Official Receiver.
He also pleaded guilty to an offence of aggressive trading under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
The Magistrates heard that the Trading Standards investigation arose following complaints from members of the public. The frauds were perpetrated through the use of signs and penalty notices issued from various sites in Wembley and Harrow in the name of Regional Clamping Services Ltd, months after it had been officially wound up. Two victims were asked to pay £385 and £333 respectively for the removal of wheel clamps from their vehicles.
The victim who was the subject of the aggressive behaviour was parked at an industrial estate when he was blocked in by a tow truck driven by an operative employed by Mr Peacock. The court heard that the clamper, who was dressed in combat style clothing, laughed at the victim and threatened to tow his car away if he did not pay £333 in cash.
Brent and Harrow Trading Standards worked in partnership with the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), who added two further offences after proceedings had been instituted against Mr Peacock. He was charged with continuing to act in the management of another company, Regional Clamping Services (UK) Ltd, when he was disqualified from holding such office and also for the fact that he was using a company name which was similar to the company which had previously been wound up (Regional Clamping Services Ltd).
The defendant pleaded guilty to these two offences and was given a further 10 weeks consecutive prison sentence suspended for 18 months and ordered to pay £858.50 to BIS as a contribution towards their prosecution costs.
In mitigation, Mr Peacock’s barrister stated his client was not aware that his employees were acting in an aggressive manner and that he had been trading legitimately prior to these incidents. He added that the formation of the new company under a similar name would not have put the public at risk, nor would it have led to any confusion in the minds of any potential investors.
Speaking after the case, Bill Bilon, Head of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service said, “I am disappointed at the sentence imposed in this matter as it was a clear case of fraud and using underhand techniques to extract money from innocent victims. Rogue traders like Mr Peacock should be sent a clear message that illegal trading, particularly where threats are used against the public, will not be tolerated. I am pleased that we have secured compensation for his victims and that we have been able to work with our colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to bring this matter to a successful conclusion.”
Notes to Editors
1. Under the Fraud Act 2009, it is an offence to dishonestly make a false representation with the intention of making a gain.
2. The maximum sentence that a Magistrates Court may impose under the Fraud Act 2006 is 12 months imprisonment or £5,000 fine.
3. Under Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, it is an offence for a trader to engage in aggressive trading practices which impair the average consumer’s freedom of choice in making a transactionsal decision.
4. The maximum sentence that a Magistrates Court can impose under the 2008 Regulations is £5,000 fine.
5. For more information please contact Ash Shah of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service on 020 8937 5511.
ONLINE CRIME PAYBACK TIME
On 2nd November 2010, at Harrow Crown Court, Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service secured a confiscation order for £110,113.00 against John Evans (aged 60) of Laughton Road, Northolt, Middlesex.
His Honour Judge Mole made the order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and Mr Evans was ordered to pay the full amount within four months or face a further two years in prison. Even if he serves the default prison sentence for not paying the order, he will still owe the authorities the full amount with interest added to the outstanding balance.
The confiscation hearing resulted from an investigation by Brent & Harrow Trading Standards that had led to Mr Evans being sentenced in November 2009 to eight months in prison for selling fake and electrically unsafe laptop chargers from an on-line business that he was operating from premises in Rayners Lane. Evidence obtained by the Officers had shown that Mr Evans had been operating his illegal business in counterfeit Sony, Dell and other lap top chargers since 2004 which had a turnover of nearly £200,000 per year.
Following this conviction, confiscation proceedings were instituted in order to recover the money that Mr Evans had made from his criminal conduct. A Financial Investigator from Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service used the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to expose the defendant’s finances over a six year period.
In making the order for the confiscation of £110,113, HHJ Mole stated that he was in no doubt that the defendant had intended to run his business so that all the profits were removed as quickly as possible to hide them from the authorities.
Speaking after the case, Bill Bilon, Director of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service said, “In this case the laptop chargers were not only counterfeit but also electrically unsafe. I am pleased that my officers have acted so diligently to stop this illegal enterprise in order to protect the public locally as well as throughout the country. This case shows that crime really doesn’t pay as the defendant has not only served time in prison but has also been stripped of all his ill-gotton gains. The Proceeds of Crime Act is a powerful tool for enforcement agencies and I hope that this case will act as a deterrent to all those who are involved in criminal activities”.
Apart from this case, Brent & Harrow Trading Standards has had a number of other successes under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Nine confiscation orders have been secured in the past totalling £913,000.00 against individuals who have been convicted for selling counterfeit goods and clocked cars.
Note for Editors:–
1. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 came into force on 24th March 2003 and allows for the removal of assets that have been acquired as a result of crime.
2. Counterfeiting is listed within Schedule 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 as a ‘criminal lifestyle’ offence. If a person is convicted of committing a Trade Marks Act offence, then they are deemed to have a criminal lifestyle, which means that investigators can go back over a six year period to calculate a benefit figure and the court can be invited to make certain assumptions about a defendant’s income, expenditure and assets.
3. For further information on this press release please contact Simon Martin on 020 8937 5533
Business owner and Assistant fined for Chewing Tobacco Sale to Minor
On 19 October 2010 at Brent Magistrates Court, Mr Nilesh Bhailal Doshi, aged 47 and Mr Kishor Shah, aged 55, both pleaded guilty to selling chewing tobacco to a 15 year old child. Mr Doshi, the sole owner of ‘Payal Chat Corner’ located in Ealing Road, Wembley, also pleaded guilty for failing to display the correct tobacco warning notice in the premises.
Assisted by an interpreter in court, Mr Doshi of Norton Road, Wembley, was fined £200 whilst Mr Shah of Forty Avenue, Wembley, was fined £150. Both defendants were each ordered to pay a contribution of £250 towards Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service prosecution costs as well as a £15 victim surcharge, a levy added to every fine handed out in court, which is used to fund services for the victims of crime.
The court heard that the case arose following a Trading Standards ‘under age test purchasing’ exercise in June 2010, during which two girls aged 13 and 15 were instructed to attempt to purchase chewing tobacco from the Mr Doshi’s business.
The child volunteers, who were being closely monitored by undercover Trading Standards Officers, approached Mr Shah in the shop and asked for a packet of ‘Tulsi Mix’. The only question Mr Shah asked the girls was to clarify which size packet they wanted. At no point did he question the volunteer’s age or ask for any ID. Meanwhile, Mr Doshi who was also present in the shop when the sale took place did nothing to challenge the transaction.
The girls left the premises with their £2.00 packet of chewing tobacco and handed it straight over to Trading Standards Officers who were laying in wait outside.
When officers returned to the business to ascertain who was culpable for the sale, they observed that the tobacco warning notice which should have read ‘It is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone under the age of 18’ in a prescribed font and size, had not been displayed. However, an incorrectly worded sign which did not comply with strict legal regulations, had been erected instead.
At a later date, Mr Doshi was interviewed explaining that he was responsible for the business. He did not employ Mr Shah to work at the shop but that he was a friend, who helped out as and when required. Mr Doshi had given Mr Shah verbal instructions not to sell tobacco to children but had no written procedures or controls. Mr Shah was also interviewed and gave a similar account.
Speaking after the case, Bill Bilon, Head of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service said: ‘Protecting young people from the dangers of tobacco is a major priority for the Service, but in addition, chewing tobacco is the cause of anti social behaviour in Wembley as once it has been chewed, the user spits it out. This can often be the cause of red staining commonly seen covered across Wembley’s streets. I would encourage all local business who sell age restricted products, including chewing tobacco, to speak to the Trading Standards Service about joining our free ‘Responsible Trader Scheme and receiving advice about their role in preventing users from spitting chewing tobacco onto Brent’s streets’.
Notes for editors
1. For further information on this press release please contact Simon Legg on 020 8937 5522.
2. It is a criminal offence to sell tobacco to anyone under the age of eighteen.
3. In the UK, chewing tobacco is typically consumed by South Asian communities. It is perceived by some that this form of highly addictive smokeless tobacco is a harmless alternative to smoking cigarettes. However, this could not be further from the truth as those who chew tobacco, are at an increased risk of attracting oral cancers or suffering from other conditions including gum and heart disease.
4. For more information on the work of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service please see our website at www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/brent&harrow
FINE FOR BOOZE SALE
On Thursday 21st October 2010 at Harrow Magistrates Court, a local trader Ms Julia Stolf, owner of Europe Plus 56 Greenhill Way, Harrow, and shop assistant Ms Diana Selina, of Booth Road, Colindale, London, pleaded guilty to an offence under the Licensing Act 2003 for supplying alcohol to a 15 year old child. Ms Stolf was fined £365.00 and ordered to pay a contribution to prosecution costs of £938.00. Ms Diana Selina was fined £165.00.
The Court heard that following an anonymous tip off, on the 15th April 2010, Officers from Brent and Harrow Trading Standards directed two school children aged 14 and 15, to enter a shop called ‘Europe Plus’, and attempt to purchase some alcohol.
In the shop, the young boy was able to purchase a bottle of ‘Chimne Beer’ without the cashier asking either child their age, or to produce any identification. The court heard that during the time of the sale Ms Selina was using the telephone and did not look at the children as the purchase was made. The court also heard that the owner of the shop Ms Stolf, had been approached by Trading Standards some months earlier and was invited to join the Responsible Trader Scheme which would assist her in preventing such sales from occurring. Ms Stolf refused to join the scheme.
Ms Julia Stolf subsequently attended a formal interview with Trading Standards Officers where she admitted that the boy who purchased the alcohol looked under 18 years of age.
After the case, Bill Bilon, Director of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards stated, “There is a huge amount of public concern regarding under age drinking and its association with anti social behaviour. We can help local businesses who sign up to our ‘Responsible Trader’ scheme by providing training materials and guidance with respect to under age sales”.
“Further, the Service has also launched its ‘Shop the Shop’ encouraging school children and members of the public to send a free anonymous text by sending the word ‘shop’ followed by their message giving details of businesses who they suspect as supplying age restricted goods to children to this number 80800”.
Notes for Editors –
1. The legislation prohibiting the sale of alcohol to those under the age of eighteen is the Licensing Act 2003. Maximum penalty £5000.00.
2. For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Martin on 020 8937 5533.
Convicted Counterfeiter Surrenders After 16 Months on the Run
A local market trader, who had been found guilty in his absence for selling fake goods after absconding before the start of his trial in June 2009, finally surrendered himself and has been ordered by Harrow Crown Court to serve a three month prison sentence.
Mr Hitesh Sood, aged 44, formally of St Paul’s Avenue, Harrow, also pleaded guilty to an offence under the Bail Act for failing to appear at the original trial for which he received a further 14 days concurrent prison sentence. In addition, the Court ordered him to pay a contribution of £1,500 towards Brent and Harrow Trading Standards’ prosecution costs.
Mr Sood had originally entered not guilty pleas in September 2008 to five counts under the Trade Marks Act 1994 and a date had been set for his trial. However, when his trial date arrived in April 2009, he failed to appear at Court even though he had given his barrister instructions to represent him at the hearing.
The case went ahead in his absence in front of a jury who heard how Mr Sood had sold a counterfeit pair of Nike jogging bottoms and a pair of Lasoste shorts to an undercover Trading Standards Officer from his market stall at Greenhill Way, Harrow.
Officers later returned to the stall and seized over 100 items of fake clothing bearing the names and logos of famous brands such as Adidas, Lacoste and Nike.
Following the Jury’s guilty verdict, His Honour Judge Arran had ordered the forfeiture of the counterfeit goods and had issued an immediate warrant for the defendant’s arrest. However, Mr Sood, who had previously been cautioned for selling counterfeit goods from a market in Waltham Forest, again failed to appear before the Court and he was sentenced in his absence to a period of three months in custody.
At the hearing on 4th October 2010, Mr Sood’s barrister informed the Court that during the original trial the defendant had been threatened by a gang who had accused him of owing them money and had robbed him of his lorry and stock from a shop that he owned in Tottenham. He added that Mr Sood feared that the gang would be waiting for him if he appeared at Court so he had decided to leave his wife and daughter and moved to the North of the country.
Speaking after the case, Bill Bilon, Head of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service said, “I am pleased to see that this defendant saw sense after 16 months of being on the run and decided to hand himself in to the authorities. My Officers are constantly investigating the supply of counterfeit goods and I hope that this case will be a stark reminder to those who think they can get away with breaking the law that they will be caught and bought to justice.”
Notes for Editors –
1. A person guilty of an offence under the Trade Marks Act 1994 can be liable on conviction at a Magistrates Court to a fine of up to £5000 per offence and / or up to a maximum of six months imprisonment and on conviction at Crown Court to an unlimited fine and / or up to a maximum of ten years imprisonment.
2. For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Legg on 020 8937 5522.
Trading Standards Bring Money Launderer to Justice
An elderly Harrow resident targeted by rogue builders and conned out of her money saw one member of the gang brought to justice last week. Following an investigation by Harrow Councils' Trading standards department, one member of a suspected gang of rogue builders was successfully convicted and ordered to pay the victim £2,000 in compensation.
Kayleigh Swales (21) of Carlow Street, Middlesbrough was also sentenced to 20 weeks imprisonment, suspended for 18 months and 100 hours unpaid work after being found guilty of money laundering under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Miss Swales was sentenced on 30th September 2010 at Harrow Magistrates Court for her part in a £11,000 scam uncovered by Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service.
The Court heard that Police, together with officers from Brent and Harrow Trading Standards were called to the home of a distraught elderly Harrow resident on 29th May 2009 after she had become suspicious of workmen at her house.
The victim, who lived alone, had been cold called a few days earlier by a man purporting to be from a roofing company called Texacote. He claimed to be working in the area and asked if he could check the property for any work that might need to be done. The victim agreed to this and was told by the man, who she only knew as Tom, that repair work was required which he could complete for a nominal fee.
Once the work began the victim was told that further work was needed costing £3,500. This figure then rose to £14,000 of which the victim paid £1,500 cash and £9,500 via a bank transfer to an account in the name of the defendant, Kayleigh Swales. Tom then requested a further £25,000 for additional repairs at which point the homeowner became suspicious and alerted the authorities.
An investigation was subsequently conducted and an assessment of the property was carried out by an independent surveyor who confirmed the repair work was totally unnecessary and that an extortionate price had been charged.
Later, an entry warrant was executed by Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Officers at Miss Swales home address in Middlesbrough, and the defendant was interviewed concerning her involvement in the scam.
During the interview Miss Swales refused to cooperate or give an explanation for the £9,500 lodged to her bank account and withdrawn in cash on the same day.
In passing sentence the Chair of the Magistrates stated that the offence was of a very serious nature, aggravated by the fact that the victim was vulnerable and that Miss Swales had not provided any assistance to the investigator concerning the other perpetrators of the fraud.
Portfolio Holder for Environment and Community Safety, Cllr Phillip ODell said,
“Harrow Council puts the safety and protection of our residents as a highest priority.
We will always act quickly and thoroughly to protect residents in cases like this.
Targeting pensioners in this way will not be tolerated and we will continue to work with the police and our own trading standards to ensure anyone involved in this type of scam is brought to justice."
Bill Bilon, Director of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service said, “I am delighted that the Courts have recognised the seriousness of this offence. The sentence sends out a strong message that if you are involved in any way with criminal activity you must expect to pay the consequences. This Service will use whatever powers are available to us to stop elderly and vulnerable consumers from being targeted by callous rogue traders.
Anyone who assists their activities can expect to be prosecuted”.
If you need help or want to report suspicious activity then please contact Brent and Harrow Trading Standards on 0208 937 5555 selecting option 1.
Notes for Editors
1. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 creates an offence for persons to possess criminal property, knowing or suspecting that it constituted or represented a person’s benefit from criminal conduct.
2. For further information on this press release please contact Simon Martin on 020 8937 5533.
Trading Standards Capping the Supply of Fakes from Wembley Market
On 28 September 2010, a Wembley Market trader was given a Curfew Order by Brent Magistrates Court and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £250 to the London Boroughs of Brent and Harrow Trading Standard Service.
Eric Scotland, aged 50, of Hampton Road, Luton, pleaded guilty to four offences under The Trade Marks Act 1994 for having in possession for distribution, counterfeit caps and socks.
The Order means Mr Scotland will have to wear an electronic tag and stay at his home address between 19.00 and 07.00hrs for the next four weeks.
The Court heard that on the morning of Sunday 25th April 2010, as part of multi agency operation code named ‘Capital’, Trading Standards Officers, Police from the local Tokyngton Safer Neighbourhood Team, Her Majesty’s Customs and Revenue (HMRC) and the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) Officers, stopped a number vehicles at a road block near the entrance of Wembley Market.
HMRC officers checked traders for tax evasion or for fraudulently claiming benefits and VOSA inspected vehicles for their roadworthiness.
During the course of the operation, Trading Standards Officers searched Mr Scotland’s Transit van which was on route to Wembley Market and found counterfeit caps bearing famous brand names such as New Era, Gucci and Superman along with a large quantity of fake Nike socks
Mr Scotland attended an interview during June 2010 when he was questioned about the goods. He explained that he was delivering them to the market to be sold by a fiend called ‘Martin’. However, during questioning Mr Scotland was unable to provide contact details for his friend and could not remember anything about where and from whom he had collect the goods.
The defendant’s solicitor stated during the hearing that he his client was remorseful for his actions and that he was unemployed since losing his job as a plasterer. He added that Mr Scotland had become involved in the sale of counterfeit goods as he had seen it as a victimless crime.
Bill Bilon, Head of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service said, “This case is yet another in a long line of successful prosecutions against traders who have been caught selling counterfeit goods from Wembley Market. These traders are not only infringing the registered trade marks of leading companies, but they are misleading consumers into purchasing inferior quality goods which provide very poor value for money. I hope that this case will send a clear message to those involved in the sale of counterfeit goods that that Service will use all available resources to stop the sale of counterfeit goods in this area".
Notes for Editors –
1) Under the Trade Marks Act 1994, it is an offence to possess for sale or sell any goods bearing marks which have not been authorised by the trade mark owner. The maximum penalty which can be imposed by the Magistrates Court is a fine of £5,000 per offence and / or up to 6 months imprisonment. In the Crown Court the maximum penalty for an offence under the Trade Marks Act 1994 is an unlimited fine and / or up to ten years imprisonment.
2) For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Legg on 020 8937 5522
Car Clocker’s Cash Seized and Forfeited
On Friday 24 September 2010 at Brent Magistrates Court, Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service secured a £3,000 cash forfeiture order against Mohammed Asadur Rahman, aged 31, of Colebrook House, Ellesmere Street, London.
The case arose as a result of an entry warrant that was executed by officers from Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service at Mr Rahman’s home address on 26 January 2010. The warrant had been obtained by officers investigating the alleged supply of clocked cars as part of a large scale criminal investigation.
During the search of Mr Rahman’s house, £3,000 in cash was found which was seized by Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 as it was suspected that it had been derived from criminal activities.
The subsequent investigation revealed that Mr Rahman had been associated with the supply of 22 clocked cars over a ten month period. Most of the cars had been purchased from a well known car auction with high mileages, typically over 100,000 miles on the clock. Once driven away from the auction, the cars would be clocked to reveal much lower mileages which meant that they were easier to sell to unsuspecting consumers for a greater financial gain.
One example used in the court proceedings showed the profit that can be made from selling clocked cars. The court heard that a Vauxhall Zafira had been purchased from the auction with over 100,000 miles on the clock for £1,748. The car was then clocked to show a mileage of 72,000 miles and was then sold a few days later for £2,900.
When questioned during the hearing, Mr Rahman maintained his innocence and stated that the seized money had come from the sale of a car that had not been clocked. However, he did admit to changing the mileages of four other cars which he said was due to the fact that the odometers were faulty. He went on to tell the court that an ex-business partner was responsible for the sale of some of the remaining vehicles and that this person had used Mr Rahman’s bank and auction accounts to buy the cars.
After hearing the evidence, the Magistrates decided that the cash should be forfeited under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. They also awarded £1,267 costs to the Trading Standards Service, which Mr Rahman will now have to pay.
Speaking after the case, Bill Bilon, Head of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service said: “I hope that this case sends out a clear message that trading in clocked cars is illegal and really doesn’t pay. The Proceeds of Crime Act is a powerful piece of legislation that can be used to remove assets from those who have benefited from committing crime.”
Note for Editors
1. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 came into force on 24 March 2003 and allows for the confiscation of assets that have been acquired as a result of crime.
2. Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 allows Local Authority Accredited Financial Investigators to seize cash where it is suspected that it has been derived from criminal conduct. Once cash is seized under this Act the Accredited Financial Investigator must apply to the Magistrates Court within 48 hours to authorise its detention.
3. For further information on this press release please contact Simon Martin, Assistant Head of Trading standards, on 020 8937 5533.
Court not ATOL Amused
On 14 September 2010, a local travel agent and its director were fined a total of £7,000 by Brent Magistrates Court and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £973 to the London Boroughs of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service.
NMC Travel Limited, trading as ‘Taj Tours and Travel’ from Ealing Road, Wembley and its director, Mr Krishna Samji, aged 42, each pleaded guilty to five offences under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 for making false claims as to the approval and membership of trade bodies such as the Air Travel Operators Licence’ (ATOL), European Tour Operators Association (EOTA) and UKinbound.
The Magistrates heard that the investigation into the defendant company’s activities arose after the Trading Standards service received a complaint from an Australian tourist who was visiting family in Brent. Whist he was here he booked a holiday with Taj tours and Travel for his relatives himself to go on an escorted tour around Europe. However, only a day before he was due to depart, the defendant company notified him that the tour had been cancelled due to lack of bookings.
The consumer was promised a refund but when the cheque was paid into his bank account it bounced. Having noticed that NMC Travel Limited used an ATOL logo on their business card, the consumer contacted them to complain and to find out whether they could resolve his problem. However, much to his horror he was told by ATOL that NMC Travel Limited were not in fact members of their scheme and should not have been displaying the ATOL logo.
The consumer reported the matter to Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service who discovered that the company was making further false claims on their website (www.tajtours.co.uk) by displaying the UKinbound and the EOTA logos when the business did not hold membership of either organisation.
During October 2009, an undercover Trading Standards Officer visited Taj Tours and Travel’s office and enquired about a European excursion similar to the one that had originally been booked by the Australian tourist. The officer was given a Taj Tours brochure which too contained false claims as to the approval and membership of ATOL, ETOA and UKinbound.
In mitigation, Mr Samji stated to the Magistrates that his company specialised in tours for the Asian community. The business card and brochure which depicted the logos were old stock belonging to a previous company which also traded as ‘Taj Tours and Travel’ and that the logos had been placed on his company’s website by mistake.
Speaking after the case, Bill Bilon, Head of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service said: “Being a member of these trade organisations offers consumers confidence that they are dealing with a reputable business and avoids them from suffering financial loss or being stranded abroad in the event of a holiday company becoming insolvent.
“To make these false claims is totally deceiving to any potential holidaymaker who enquires about, or books a holiday with Taj Tours and Travel which has been reflected in the penalty handed out by the Magistrates in this matter.”
The consumer did finally receive a refund for his cancelled European tour having commenced legal proceedings in the County Court. The matter was settled outside of Court.
Notes to Editors
1. Schedule 1 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 lists 31 commercial practices which are considered in law to be unfair in all circumstances and as such which are prohibited. Claiming that a trader or a product has been approved, endorsed or authorised by a public or private body when the trader or the product has not been is a criminal offence which carries a maximum penalty of a two year prison sentence and/or a fine.
2. For more information please contact Simon Legg of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service on 020 8937 5522.
A Quarter of a Million Reasons Why Crime Does Not Pay
On Monday 23rd August 2010 at Inner London Crown Court, Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service secured the confiscation of £254,000 from Nazakat Hussain after he was caught dealing in counterfeit goods from Wembley Market. HHJ Chapple made the order for this confiscation under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and gave him six months to pay up.
Confiscation proceedings were instituted last year following the successful conviction of Mr Hussain by Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service, which resulted in him being sentenced to two years in prison for supplying counterfeit goods from stalls at Wembley market. The Trading Standards Service used the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which came into force to strip criminals of their ill gotten gains, to expose Mr Hussain’s finances and assets over a six year period. These detailed investigations revealed that Mr Hussain owned three houses, a business premise, a six series convertible BMW and that he had thousands of pounds in various bank accounts. All of these assets were then subject to restraint orders imposed by Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service in order to prevent them from disappearing.
During the hearing on 23rd August 2010, the court accepted that Mr Hussain had benefited to the value of £600,000 from his criminal activities and that the amount available to him to pay was £254,000.
Mr Hussain will now have to pay the order in full within the next six months or he will face serving a default prison sentence, which was set at 3 years. Should he serve a term in prison in default for non payment of the order, he would still owe the full amount. Furthermore, any outstanding balance after the six months deadline would start attracting interest.
Mr Hussain now faces selling his assets in order to pay the order, including his six series convertible BMW
Over the past two years Brent & Harrow Trading Standards have secured seven other confiscation orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, against individuals associated with the supply of counterfeit goods and clocked cars. These seven orders amount to £258,573.
Speaking after the case, Bill Bilon, the Head of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service said “I hope that this case sends out a clear message that trading in counterfeit goods really doesn’t pay. Those engaged in the sale of counterfeit goods, or indeed involved in high value crime will not just get a criminal record but they may also face being stripped of their assets. The Proceeds of Crime Act is a powerful piece of legislation and we will continue to use it to deprive those who choose to act in a criminal manner.”
Note for Editors –
• The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 came into force on 24th March 2003 and allows for the confiscation of assets that have been acquired as a result of crime
• The supply of counterfeit goods, contrary to section 92 of the Trade Marks Act 1994, is listed within Schedule 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act as a ‘criminal lifestyle’ offence. If a person is convicted of a criminal lifestyle offence then a defendant’s finances and assets can be exposed over a six year period in order to calculate a benefit figure and the court can be invited to make certain assumptions about a defendant’s income, expenditure and assets. It is then for the defendant to rebut these assumptions
• For further information on this press release please contact either Simon Legg or Lee Wenzel on 020 8937 5522 or 020 8937 5527 respectively.
Fake Goods Supplier Exposed
On 18th August 2010, a local supplier of counterfeit goods was given a three month curfew order by Harrow Crown Court and ordered to pay £500 in prosecution costs to the London Boroughs of Brent & Harrow Trading standards Service.
Mr Salhudin Nazim, aged 42, of West Way, Neasden, was ordered to stay at his home address between the hours of 19.30 and 05.00hrs after pleading guilty to three offences under the Trade Marks Act 1994.
During the hearing the court heard that the Trading Standards Officers commenced their investigation against the defendant when a small quantity of counterfeit Durex condoms were seized from a Wembley newsagent’s premises.
The owner of this business assisted Trading Standards by supplying the vehicle registration details of his supplier. Trading Standards then traced the number to a van registered to Mr Nazim at his home address where a search warrant was executed.
Officers, assisted by the local Police, arrived at the address early on the morning of 24 September 2008 and found the van parked outside Mr Nazim’s house. When officers opened the van, they found it full of counterfeit goods including Durex condoms,
Duracell batteries and Gillette razor blades. Thousands of items were seized which, if genuine, would have been valued at over £8,000.
During the search the Officers also found copies of invoices in his van showing that the goods had been supplied over a long period of time to a number of businesses across London.
Mr Nazim was arrested and quested about his involvement in the supply of the fake goods. He stated that the goods did not belong to him and that he allowed his friend, ‘Ibrahim’, to store the goods in his van. However, he was unable to provide any further information to enable Officers to identity and trace this individual.
Mr Nazim initially pleaded ‘not guilty’ and denied ownership of the counterfeit goods, but just one day before the trial he changed his plea to guilty in relation to possessing for sale counterfeit batteries, condoms and razor blades.
The defendant’s legal representative told the Court that his client accepted that he had assisted in the supply of the counterfeit goods and had since sold the van. The Court was also told that Mr Nazim was now unemployed and was in receipt of incapacity benefit.
Before passing sentence, His Honour Judge Arran said, “These offences are serious; firstly it’s a fraud to the public who pay money believing they [the counterfeit goods] are genuine; secondly it’s a fraud on the real manufacturers whose name suffers and they suffer financially whilst others profit from their good name; and thirdly, the selling of pharmaceuticals may have other dangers to the public”.
Speaking after the case, Bill Bilon, Head of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service said, “This case shows how unscrupulous traders have moved away from supplying fake DVDs and clothing, and progressed into counterfeiting goods which consumers would never suspect as being fakes. The supply of counterfeit condoms is particularly worrying as the consequences could be severe.
It is pleasing to see that we have managed to disrupt and bring a stop to this distributor of counterfeit goods”.
NOTES TO EDITORS
1) Under the Trade Marks Act 1994, it is an offence to possess for sale or sell any goods bearing marks which have not been authorised by the registered trade mark owners.
2) The maximum sentence that a court can impose under the Trade Marks Act 1994 on indictment is 10 years imprisonment and / or an unlimited fine.
3) For more information please contact Simon Legg of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service on 020 8937 5522.
These Boots are made for Prison
Two traders caught selling fake goods pleaded guilty and were sentenced at Harrow Crown Court on 6th August 2010 for a number of trade mark offences.
Habib Melloul (aged 28) of Shrewsbury Street, Kensington and Chelsea was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment and ordered to pay £2,000 in prosecution costs to the London Boroughs of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service.
His wife, Aisha Melloul (aka Caryl Hubbard), aged 28, who was also involved in the business, was given a six month prison sentence suspended for two years and ordered to perform 80 hours of unpaid community work.
In addition, she was ordered to pay £3,000 towards the cost of the prosecution
The court heard Habib Melloul and Aisha Melloul were jointly involved in the purchase, storing and onward distribution of counterfeit shoes, clothing and bags.
The goods were sold at Wembley and Portobello markets and on e-Bay and Amazon websites.
Habib Melloul came to the attention of Trading Standards following an inspection at Wembley Market in November 2008 when Officers were conducting routine checks in order to regulate the sale of counterfeit goods.
On that occasion, Officers found 67 pairs of counterfeit ‘Ugg Boots’ hidden in laundry bags behind a food stall.
The boots were seized and later in the day, Habib Melloul enquired of their whereabouts and admitted that they were his and that he had been selling them for £70 a pair.
Following the seizure, Mr Melloul changed his story by stating that there had been a mistake and the seized goods had nothing to do with him.
However, as a result of further investigations, it came to light that he had continued selling fakes on his website (Amazon.co.uk) and was linked to an online store called “UGG Love” which specialised in counterfeit UGG boots. This was confirmed by the officers following a test purchase of a counterfeit pair UGG boots from his website at a cost of £88.50.
Entry warrants were executed at addresses linked to Habib Melloul. At Shrewsbury Street, a search of the premises revealed a large quantity of high-end fashion clothing, handbags, jewellery and further stocks of “UGG” boots exactly the same as those previously seized from Wembley Market..
In addition, Officers found numerous invoices in the name of Aisha Hubbard which related to the importation of the counterfeit goods from China at a cost of over £10,000. Officers also found business cards and documents in relation to a website “www.I want that replica”, which appeared to be operated largely by Aisha Hubbard. Two computers that were seized contained over 5,000 pictures of designer shoes, handbags and Ugg boots, along with emails and other documents which proved the couple’s involvement in the manufacture and sale of the counterfeit goods.
Evidence obtained from Paypal, an online banking facility, identified four accounts linked to the defendants, which showed that over £81,000 had been earned by them just from their web based businesses that specialised in the sale of counterfeit goods.
Speaking after the case, Bill Bilon, Head of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service said, “These two individuals’ ran a sophisticated business importing and then selling counterfeit goods from a number of outlets. This was a substantial business enterprise which was set up solely for making profits from the sale of counterfeit goods. I hope that these convictions will act as a reminder to those who might be tempted to get involved in any form of illegal trading that they will be caught and the likely consequence will be a criminal record and a lengthy prison sentence.
NOTES TO EDITORS
1) Under the Trade Marks Act 1994, it is an offence to possess for sale or sell any goods bearing marks which have not been authorised by the registered trade mark owner.
2) The maximum sentence that a court may impose under the Trade Marks Act 1994 on indictment is 10 years imprisonment and / or an unlimited fine.
3) For more information please contact Simon Martin or Simon Legg of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service on 020 8937 5533 or 020 8937 5522.
Electronic ankle bracelet for king of fake bling
A trader caught at Wembley Market with a haul of fake jewellery bearing prestigious brand names pleaded guilty to a number of trade mark offences at Brent Magistrates Court on 3rd August 2010.
Ajmal Mazidi, 24, of Heathstan Road in Shepherd’s Bush, was ordered to wear an electronic tag and remain under curfew at his house between 8 in the evening and 5 in the morning for the next 12 weeks and was also ordered to pay Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service £800 towards the cost of bringing the case. All of the counterfeit goods seized from Mazidi were forfeited for destruction by order of the Court.
The court heard that as part of the ongoing ‘Operation Capital’, Trading Standards, Police from the local Tokyngton Safer Neighbourhood Team, Her Majesty’s Customs and Revenue (HMRC) and VOSA Officers set up a checkpoint at one of the entrances to Wembley Market early on the morning of Sunday 25th April 2010. All traders entering the market by this route were then pulled to one side and checked by Trading Standards Officers for counterfeit goods,
HMRC officers for evidence of tax evasion or fraudulently claiming benefits and VOSA, who checked vehicles for roadworthiness.
Ajmal Mazidi was one of the market traders stopped on the day and was found to have approximately 800 items of counterfeit jewellery, watches, hats, sunglasses and wallets in the boot of his car bearing dozens of false brand names such as Cartier, Rolex, Breitling, Chanel, Versace, Links of London, Dolce and Gabbana, Ed Hardy and Tiffany.
When questioned by Officers, Mr Mazidi accepted the goods were counterfeit and explained that he had acquired them from another trader at Wembley Market without any receipts or documentation whatsoever.
When passing sentence, the Magistrates acknowledged Mr Mazidi’s early guilty plea and his remorse as well as taking into account that he was a father of 5 children who was temporarily not receiving his full salary as a school caretaker because he is unable to work due to a back injury.
Speaking after the case, Bill Bilon, Head of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service said, “This was a new style of enforcement operation at Wembley Market which allowed Officers not to just process many more traders then they otherwise would have done, but also enabled our partner agencies to speak to traders and detect any offences within their remit. It is a great example of partnership working to reduce criminality within the borough”.
NOTES TO EDITORS
1) Under the Trade Marks Act 1994, it is an offence to possess for sale or sell any goods bearing marks which have not been authorised by the registered trade mark owner.
2) The maximum sentence that a court may impose under the Trade Marks Act 1994 on indictment is 10 years imprisonment and / or an unlimited fine.
3) For more information please contact Simon Legg of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service on 020 8937 5522.
‘Webb’ of deceit lands Brent internet traders in court
On 20th July 2010 Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service secured a court enforcement order against the former directors of Emoto UK Ltd, a Brent based internet mail order company who were the cause of hundreds of consumers complaints from across the UK and as far afield as Russia and Australia.
The court heard that Father and Son team Daniel William Webb, 64, and Tal Jonathan Webb, 26, who were not present at the hearing, had been causing substantial consumer harm for many years despite a variety of interventions by Trading Standards Officers to try and bring the company into compliance.
As a last resort Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service gathered evidence of the widespread breaches by the company and took them to court to force them to comply with their legal responsibilities.
Breaching the court order could now see the Webbs found in contempt of court and fined or imprisoned or both. HHJ Copley also awarded Brent and Harrow Trading Standards their full costs of £3,375 in bringing the case to court. In granting the order the court heard that consumers who had paid money for goods to Emoto often didn’t receive anything at all in return, or instead received incorrect or misdescribed goods.
When consumers then complained they were often ignored or fobbed off and generally didn’t have their money refunded back to them. This situation continued unabated despite a number of interventions, advice and warnings from Trading Standards Officers.
Consumers covered by UK law are protected by the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 when shopping online and these provide an unconditional 7 working day cancellation period to examine and return the goods for a full refund. Consumers are additionally afforded protection by the Sale of Goods Act 1979 which states that goods should be of satisfactory quality and as described on the internet website.
Bill Bilon, Head of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service said, “This order granted against these persistent offenders is achieved by way of a unique tool in our enforcement armoury and has very serious implications if breached in future. Because the order was granted in the director’s names it will follow them whatever business they decide to go into in future.
If they continue to treat their customers badly they will quickly find themselves back in court and facing harsh punishment. I hope this order reminds all internet and mail order traders of their legal responsibilities to treat their customers fairly and that they will face the consequences of not honouring their promises.
Notes for Editors –
• The Enterprise Act 2002 allows enforcers such as Brent and Harrow Trading Standards to apply to the civil courts for an enforcement order (effectively an injunction), to compel trader’s to comply with their legal responsibilities under UK and EU law.
• For further information on this press release please contact Simon Martin on 020 8937 5533.
Cashier with a WKD Side
On Tuesday 13th July 2010, Mr Sangapillai Paramsothy (60) of Beatrice Avenue, Wembley, pleaded guilty at Brent Magistrates Court for selling alcohol to a twelve year old child.
Mr Paramsothy who was employed as a cashier working at ‘Anglo Asian Mini Mart’, situated at 513 High Road, Wembley, was fined £70 including a victim surcharge and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £55 to Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service.
The Court heard that on 16th February 2010 Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Officers instructed twelve and fourteen year old girls to attempt to purchase a bottle of alcoholic ‘WKD Blue’ from Anglo Asian Mini Mart during a test purchasing exercise to monitor the sale of age restricted goods in the Wembley area.
Amazingly undercover Trading Standards Officers observed Mr Paramsothy who had worked at the shop part time for ten years, ask the younger child volunteer her age, to which she replied 12. He then asked for Identification and the child, as had previously been instructed by Trading Standards Officers, advised him that she had none. Alarmingly, Mr Paramsothy still proceeded to sell her the bottle of alcohol.
In mitigation Mr Paramsothy’s solicitor stated his client was sorry for what had happened but he [Mr Paramsothy] was working alone in a busy shop. His solicitor explained that since this incident, his employment at the shop had been terminated.
Bill Bilon, Director of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service said, “We are extremely disappointed by the low fine the Court has imposed as in this case. It is difficult to understand why Mr Paramsothy sold the alcohol to a child who was so clearly under age and the fact that she told the seller she was only 12 years old. The fact that the fine is so low,
in my view, does not act as a deterrent to retailers who illegally sell age restricted goods. The law rightfully places a heavy burden on retailers and their staff to be vigilant and, in order to comply; they must take all reasonable precautions to prevent such sales from taking place.
“This Service operates a Responsible Trader Scheme to help traders and their staff avoid underage sales of goods such as alcohol, knives, spray paints, cigarettes and fireworks,
and I would urge any business interested in joining this free scheme to contact our offices.”
Notes for Editors –
1. It is illegal for retailers to sell alcohol to anyone who is under 18. The Maximum fine for this offence is £5000.
2. For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Legg on 020 8937 5511
Internet Café Smoked out Following Under Age Sale
On 15th June 2010, Mr Ziad Kreadeih (27), of Chalk Hill, Wembley, pleaded guilty to offences of supplying cigarettes which did not display the necessary statutory health warning and failing to exhibit the legally required tobacco warning notice in his business premises which traded as Express Internet Cafe in Preston Road, Wembley. He was fined £265 and ordered to pay a £592.50 contribution to Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service’s costs for bringing the prosecution.
Previously on the 18th May 2010, Mr Kreadeih’s employee, Ms Andrada Mierla Ambrozie, (25) of Carlton Avenue East, Wembley, Middlesex, had pleaded guilty to selling a pack of cigarettes to a 15 year old from the premises where she worked as an assistant.
The case, heard at Brent Magistrates Court, arose following an undercover Trading Standards ‘Under Age Test Purchasing’ operation in October 2009, during which two 15 year old child volunteers, were instructed to enter the business which operated as an internet café and attempt to buy a pack of igarettes.
The boys asked Ms Ambrozie for some cigarettes who served them a pack of imported Marlborough Lights for £3.50 without asking them how old they were or for any form of identification.
After the sale, Trading Standards Officers examined the cigarettes and identified that they were not intended for sale in the UK. The pack did not display a statutory health warning such as “Smoking Kills”, and therefore was prohibited from supply under safety legislation.
The Magistrates heard how Ms Ambrozie had been working in the shop for five months at the time of the sale. She admitted to Trading Standards Officers who had subsequently interviewed her that she had received training in relation to underage sales and knew what identification to ask for when dealing with age restricted products.
Mr Kreadeih and Ms Ambrozie who are both currently unemployed, were given credit by the Magistrates for their early guilty pleas. Ms Ambrozie received a sentence of a £100 fine and was ordered to pay £50 costs.
Speaking after the case, Bill Bilon, Head of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service said, “Preventing the sale of age restricted goods to children remains a priority to the Service. There are numerous simple procedures that retailers can follow to prevent such sales and I would encourage all local business who sell any age restricted goods, to join our free ‘Responsible Trader Scheme’ so we can provide them a training DVD and comprehensive guidance to prevent illegal sales to under age children”.
“In addition, the Service operates its ‘Shop the Shop’ initiative where young people, members of the public or businesses can report shops selling age restricted goods by sending a free anonymous text message to 80800. The text should start with the word ‘shop’ followed by the message giving details of businesses who they suspect as supplying age restricted goods to children”.
Notes for editors
1. For further information on this press release please contact Simon Legg on 020 8937 5522.
2. It is a criminal offence to sell cigarettes to those under the age of eighteen.
3. For more information on the work of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service please see our website at ww.tradingstandards.gov.uk/brent&harrow
UK’s largest car clockers in cashback order
Two rogue car dealers guilty of the UK’s largest car clocking fraud were yesterday (27 May) ordered to pay back over £120,000 in ill-gotten profits or face a further 20 months behind bars.
Emat Ghulamhan, 26, of Lime Lodge, Forest Road, Sunbury-on-Thames, and Noor Ahmed Sadiqi, 42, of Stuart Road, Richmond, were jailed for 27 months in December following an investigation by Brent and Harrow Trading Standards.
After a complaint from a Harrow consumer, officers uncovered a £1.5m scam involving 320 cars and a known illegal profit estimated at £280,000. The men who ran Emat and Son cars in Southall, would often buy cars at auction, illegally reduce the mileage on the clocks and then sell them on the Auto Trader website.
During a proceeds of crime case at Isleworth Crown Court yesterday Ghulaman was ordered to surrender £62,879 and Sadiqi £61,694 – all of their available assets. If the money is not paid within 28 days the pair must serve a further 20-month prison term.
Cllr Phillip O’Dell, Portfolio Holder for Environment and Community Safety on Harrow Council, said:
“This was fraud on a major scale and the type of crime you associate with the 1980s. It hit the victims twice, first because they paid substantially more than cars were worth and secondly because the extra wear and tear meant higher service and maintenance costs.
“Thanks to some outstanding investigatory work by our trading standards officers, we have hit the rogue dealers twice, putting them both behind bars and recovering their ill-gotten profits.
“Our advice to car buyers is try and get a second-hand vehicle independently assessed or ask for a full service history before you hand over any money.”
The two men were arrested after a complaint to Brent and Harrow Trading Standards in May 2008 from a Harrow consumer who bought a Volkswagen Polo with 51,000 miles on the clock for £2750 in part exchange for her 98,000 miles car of the same make and model. Three weeks later she saw her old car for sale on the Emat dealership site with a mileage of 64,100. She called the previous owner of her new car soon after and was told that the vehicle had done at least 97,000 miles.
Trading Standards officers started monitoring the site and found 23 more clocked cars that had been sold by the dealership. Many of these vehicles had been bought from motor auctions only to appear soon after with reduced mileages. The officers made undercover purchases of cars from the Southall premises and on 24 and 26 March 2009 warrants were executed and computer equipment, mobile phones, documentation and 26 suspected clocked cars seized. Further extensive investigations by Trading Standards revealed a total of 320 clocked cars had been sold or offered for sale by the defendants.
For further media information contact Cristian Marcucci on 020 8424 1850 or email cristian.marcucci@harrow.gov.uk
Counterfeiter on the run having bitten off more than they can ‘Chew’
A large scale counterfeiter who traded in fake designer clothing, handbags and fashion accessories, operating a retail outlet at Oriental City on the Edgware Road in North West London and various storage units has today been sentenced to three years in prison at Blackfriars Crown Court in respect of cases brought by Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service, along with Islington Trading Standards Service.
The Court heard that officers from Brent and Harrow Trading Standards had made undercover test purchases of a fake handbag and scarves from Chew’s shop at Oriental City in the run up to the unit being raided. Counterfeit goods including jeans, hats, scarves, tops, sunglasses, bags, jewellery and purses bearing various designer trade marks such as Prada, Christian Dior, Nike, Diesel, Stone Island, Levis, Dolce and Gabbana, Armani, Chanel, Juicy Couture, Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Rock and Republic and Playboy were seized from the premises.
Swee Teong Chew, 51, of Wylde Place, Palmers Green, London, had pleaded guilty at Harrow Crown Court to 10 offences under the Trade Marks Act 1994 last July 2009 for supplying counterfeit goods, which, had they been genuine, would have been valued in the region of £60,000. His sentencing was adjourned pending the outcome of a second case prosecuted by the London Borough of Islington which had just commenced at Blackfriars Crown Court.
The London Borough of Islington had seized counterfeit clothing, which had it been genuine, was estimated to be worth £531,000. Chew was found guilty by the jury after a lengthy trial. He was granted bail by the Judge to allow him to see his children prior to being sentenced for the Brent and Islington Council’s cases.
However, despite strict bail conditions, Swee Teong Chew failed to appear at Blackfriars Crown Court leaving HHJ Maron QC to sentence in the defendant’s absence. Swee Teong Chew received a three year custodial sentence for conspiring to commit trade mark offences, with separate 18 and 15 month custodial sentences to run concurrently imposed for the other Islington and Brent offences respectively.
HHJ Marron QC stated prior to issuing his sentence “This defendant was at the top of a sophisticated structure. I know of at least one occasion where he visited China to source his goods. Successive raids on his premises by Trading Standards failed to deter him in any way. It is difficult to be precise of Mr Chew’s level of trading but it is safe to say that it was substantial”.
A warrant has now been issued for Swee Teong Chew’s arrest and the authorities will now start their investigations to find him. There will also be a joint ongoing investigation under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 by both authorities to identify, restrain and seize any assets which are suspected have resulted from Chew’s criminal activity.
Bill Bilon, Head of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service said of the verdict: “Mr Chew was involved in counterfeiting at all levels of the supply chain, retailing, wholesaling and importing and today’s sentence reflects the scale of his operation. This verdict is the result of a lengthy and complex investigation which I am pleased to see brought to a successful conclusion. I hope that convictions such as this remind those who might be tempted to indulge in such activity that, if caught, they will not only have their goods seized and any money that they have made from the sale of fakes will be confiscated, but they will also receive a criminal record and severe punishment from the Court”.
Notes for Editors –
1) Under the Trade Marks Act 1994, it is an offence to possess for sale or sell any goods bearing marks which have not been authorised by the trade mark owner. The maximum penalty which can be imposed by the Magistrates Court is a fine of £5,000 per offence and / or up to 6 months imprisonment. In the Crown Court the maximum penalty for an offence under the Trade Marks Act 1994 is an unlimited fine and / or up to ten years imprisonment.
2) For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Legg on 020 8937 5522.
Counterfeiter lucky to escape immediate jail term
A counterfeiter who manufactured and distributed DVDs, computer games, software and music CDs was sentenced on 19th May 2010 at Harrow Crown Court to six months imprisonment suspended for two years, and ordered to pay £5,000 prosecution costs to the London Boroughs of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service.
Stephen Horton, 34, of Earlsmead, Harrow, had earlier pleaded guilty to six offences under the Trade Marks Act 1994 for possessing for supply and manufacturing counterfeit goods.
The Court heard that Brent and Harrow Trading Standards had conducted test purchases from a website raretelevision.com, of various items, including rare DVDs which upon examination, were found to be counterfeit copies. Enquiries revealed that the business was being operated by the defendant using an accommodation address in Harrow.
After further investigations, Trading Standards Officers accompanied by Police Officers from the local Safer Neighbourhood Team executed an entry warrant at the defendant’s home. There they found an Aladdin’s cave of over 10,000 infringing items along with computers, printers and copiers which were being used to manufacture the counterfeit goods. The defendants loft had been converted into a small manufacturing and storage area; in effect it was a cottage industry.
At interview the defendant stated that he knew what he was doing was wrong and the reason for him carrying out this illicit trade was to clear his substantial personal debt.
In passing sentence His Honour Judge Mole stated that these offences were very serious and although the custody threshold had been clearly reached, he had decided to suspend the prison sentence for two years. The reason for this was the fact that the defendant had a full time job and was trying to clear his debts, as well as financially supporting two children.
Bill Bilon, Director of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service said after the case; “the defendant was caught red handed operating a sophisticated counterfeiting cottage industry in Harrow. This will not be tolerated by this Service and I am pleased that the sentence passed by His Honour Judge Mole reflected the seriousness of this case. Legitimate traders as well as consumers need to be protected from rogue traders such as this defendant.”
Notes for Editors –
1) Under the Trade Marks Act 1994, it is an offence to possess for sale or sell any goods bearing marks which have not been authorised by the trade mark owner. The maximum penalty which can be imposed by the Magistrates Court is a fine of £5,000 per offence and / or up to 6 months imprisonment. In the Crown Court the maximum penalty for an offence under the Trade Marks Act 1994 is an unlimited fine and / or up to ten years imprisonment.
2) For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Martin on 0208 937 5533.
Unhappy Hour for Underage Alcohol Sellers
Two Harrow businesses paid the price at Harrow Magistrate’s Court yesterday for selling alcohol to children without making any checks to verify their age.
CASE 1
In the first case Mr Nainesh Hasmukhbhai Patel the personal licence holder and a partner of World News, 11-13 The Bridge, Wealdstone was fined £300 and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £910, when his employee sold beer and Vodka to a 15 year old boy. The volunteer was assisting Trading Standards Officers in a routine operation to test shops who sell age restricted products.
Despite the fact that the shop operates a policy to challenge anyone who looks under 21 to prove their age, the 15 year old boy was not questioned when he approached the counter to pay for the alcohol. When he was later questioned by Trading Standards Officers it emerged that the employee who made the sale had only worked at the shop for a short period of time and when the sale took place he was alone in the shop.
CASE 2
In the second case Mr Mukesh Patel the owner and personal licence holder of A to Z Superstore, 463 Alexandra Avenue, Rayners Lane, was fined £230 and ordered to pay costs of £860 after selling beer to a 15 year old boy. The volunteer was assisting Trading Standards Officers during a routine operation and was able to purchase four cans of beer without being challenged.
Trading Standards Officers were disappointed to find that the sale had been made by the owner and licence holder for the business and that there had been no challenge as to the age of the boy.
Bill Bilon, Director of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service said afterwards;
“I hope that these cases send a clear message to those involved in the sale of age restricted goods that they need to remain vigilant at all times or face prosecution. This Service remains as committed as ever to prohibiting the sale of age restricted goods from our local shops to ensure that consumers are not being subjected to the anti social behaviour which results when alcohol or other age restricted goods fall into the wrong hands. My officers will be conducting checks on all businesses in the borough throughout the year to ensure compliance.”
“We provide support to local businesses by offering them training and guidance with respect to under age sales when they sign up to our ‘Responsible Trader’ scheme. Businesses who would like information on how to join this free scheme should call the Trading Standards Service on 020 8937 5555 (option 2).”
Notes for Editors –
1) Under the Licensing Act 2003, it is an offence to allow the sale of alcohol to an individual aged under 18. The maximum penalty which can be imposed by the Magistrates Court is a fine of £5,000.
2) For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Martin on 0208 937 5533.
College Principal Jailed of Bogus Qualifications
On 30th April 2010 college principal Roselle Antoine was jailed for eight months for luring students from abroad with the promise of NVQ qualifications when she was not authorised to award them. A ground breaking joint prosecution was taken by Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service and the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner concerning offences committed under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
After a two week trial at Southwark Crown Court Roselle Antoine was found guilty of providing immigration services when not qualified to do so, and of making false statements in relation to the providing of NVQ qualifications.
In mitigation her Counsel, Mr Cartwright said that Antoine had done much good work in the community and had in fact been awarded an MBE. This, he stated, was nothing more than “an aberration”.
In passing sentence Recorder Catherine Newman QC said that Antoine had “offered the students the earth, but had provided very little”. Recorder Newman made it clear that a custodial sentence was the only option in what was a very serious case, and she also ordered Antoine to pay compensation to students amounting to £3550 as well as ordering her to contribute £5000 to the costs of the prosecution.
After the sentencing Bill Bilon, Director of Trading Standards for Brent and Harrow Councils stated that, “what is depressing here is that a woman lauded as an educational champion was stooping to providing fake visas and bogus qualifications.
"Those students drawn to her courses from abroad were intent on improving themselves and providing a better life for their families. Antoine had encouraged these students to come to TCS Tutorial College, pay substantial fees and then she provided them with what turned out to be completely worthless certificates”
Notes for Editors
1) Under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 the maximum penalty that can be imposed by the Crown Court is two years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
2) For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Martin on 020 8937 5533.
Church Road Cheat Pays Back Community
A market stall owner who sold fake designer clothing to the public from Church Road Market in Neasden was sentenced on 13th April 2010 at Brent Magistrates Court to 150 hours of unpaid work and ordered to pay £1,000 prosecution costs to the London Boroughs of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service.
Mohammed Farooq, 50, of The Avenue, Wembley, had earlier pleaded guilty to 10 offences under the Trade Marks Act 1994 for supplying counterfeit garments bearing the names of famous high street brands such as Nike, Adidas, Versace, G Star, D&G, Evisu, Lacoste and Ralph Lauren.
The Court heard that Brent and Harrow Trading Standards had made two undercover test purchases of a pair of fake Varsace jeans and a Nike track suit from the Mr Farooq’s stall prior to the market being raided in an enforcement operation on 18th November 2009.
During the search of the defendant’s stall and van by Trading Standards and Police Officers a total of 275 items of fake clothing were found with an estimated retail value of £18,000. The fake garments, along with £387 which Mr Farooq admitted was the takings from the sale of the counterfeit goods, were seized by the officers.
Farooq was arrested and then interviewed before being summonsed to appear at court in relation to a variety of counterfeiting offences. In sentencing Farooq, the Magistrates gave him credit for his early guilty plea and the remorse which he expressed for his actions.
Bill Bilon, Director of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service said after the case, “I hope that this case sends a clear message to those involved in the sale of counterfeit goods that they need to clean up their act or face prosecution. This Service remains as committed as ever to prohibiting the sale of counterfeit goods from our local markets to ensure that consumers are not being misled into purchasing poor quality goods and that legitimate traders are not being disadvantaged through unfair trading practices”.
Photograph of market stall
Notes for Editors –
1) Under the Trade Marks Act 1994, it is an offence to possess for sale or sell any goods bearing marks which have not been authorised by the trade mark owner. The maximum penalty which can be imposed by the Magistrates Court is a fine of £5,000 per offence and / or up to 6 months imprisonment. In the Crown Court the maximum penalty for an offence under the Trade Marks Act 1994 is an unlimited fine and / or up to ten years imprisonment.
2) For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Legg on 0208 937 5522.
Market Trader Fined for Selling Pirate Music
On Tuesday 16th March 2010, two individuals operating at Wembley Market were each fined £500 by Brent Magistrates Court and ordered to pay prosecution costs of a further £500 each to the London Boroughs of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service.
Nathan Brown, aged 31, of Chatsworth Road, London E15 and Jermaine Osbourne, aged 31, of Loates Lane, Watford WD17 both pleaded guilty to selling pirated CDs containing mainstream albums and compilations of various artists which is an offence under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Both the defendants are unemployed and will have to pay the fines and costs from their benefits.
The Court heard that the case arose after Trading Standards Officers carried out a series of joint raids with the Police and the Federation of Copyright Theft (FACT) as part of the ‘Fake Free London’ initiative, which targeted traders selling illegally copied CDs and DVDs.
On 23rd November 2008, the defendants’ were caught with 3,357 illegal pirated CDs in their possession along with DJ equipment such as speakers and a mixer, used to broadcast music and attract customers to buy their discs. This equipment along with the CDs were all seized from the stall and both defendants were arrested.
The pirated discs contained sound recordings of artists such as Beyonce, Mariah Carey and Alicia Keyes and were sold in cheap plastic sleeves with either photocopied in-lays or handwritten information on the disc identifying its contents.
The haul of discs was examined by an expert at the British Phonograph Industry (BPI) who provided evidence stating that had the music been genuine, the CDs would have been worth over £28,000.
Whilst passing sentence the Chair of the Magistrates said “These are serious allegations, it is a form of fraud”. Apart from the fines and costs, the Court also ordered the forfeiture of all the evidence seized from the defendants.
Bill Bilon, Director of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service said, “This case has been in the legal system for nearly a year and I am very pleased we have secured another conviction against those who persistently trade in illicit goods at Wembley Market. I hope that this case will send a clear message to those involved in the sale of counterfeit or copied goods that they need to clean up their act or face prosecution."
Notes for Editors –
1) Under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, it is an offence to make for sale or hire or possess for sale or sell any musical works without the licence of the copyright owner. The maximum penalty which can be imposed by the Magistrates Court is a fine of £5,000 per offence and/or up to 6 months imprisonment. In the Crown Court the maximum penalty for an offence under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 is an unlimited fine and/or up to ten years imprisonment.
2) Under the Trade Marks Act 1994, it is an offence to possess for sale or sell any goods bearing marks which have not been authorised by the trade mark owner. The maximum penalty which can be imposed by the Magistrates Court is a fine of £5,000 per offence and/or up to 6 months imprisonment. In the Crown Court the maximum penalty for an offence under the Trade Marks Act 1994 is an unlimited fine and/or up to ten years imprisonment.
3) For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Legg on 020 8937 5522.
Photograph of market stall
Chips are Down for DVD Seller Caught Selling Fakes from Burger Van
A trader who sold counterfeit DVD films from his fast food catering trailer parked at a commercial estate in Wembley was this week sentenced to 80 hours of unpaid community service and ordered to pay £1,088 costs.
Following an investigation by Brent & Harrow Trading Standards, on Tuesday, 2nd March 2010, at Brent Magistrates Court, Clive Miles (51), formerly of Sudbury Avenue, Wembley, pleaded guilty to offences under the Trade Marks Act 1994 for the possession and supply of fake DVDs many of which had just been released for cinema viewing only.
Trading Standards Officers commenced their investigation following a tip off from a member of the public in May 2007. An undercover test purchase of two fake DVDs costing a £1 each was initially made from the catering trailer which had a permanent pitch at the former GEC Estate now known as East Lane Business Park, East Lane, Wembley.
On 26th June 2007, Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Officers, supported by Preston Police Safer Neighbourhood Police Team, seized over 350 DVDs from the defendant who was employed to cook and serve fast food to his customers.
The majority of the seized DVDs were Hollywood titles such as “Meet the Robinsons”, “Spiderman 3”, “Oceans 13” and “The Namesake”. The haul also included some adult content titles. It was estimated the legitimate high street value of the mainstream DVDs was in excess of £3,000.
Following the seizure the DVDs were sent off for expert examination by the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT) who confirmed they were counterfeit. Mr Miles subsequently attended interview where he held his hands up to ownership of all of the infringing discs and admitted selling them on a regular basis.
Having been summonsed to Court, Mr Miles failed to appear at Brent Magistrates Court in July 2008 and a warrant was issued for his arrest. Further investigation by Trading Standards identified he had moved away from the area and for the past 28 months then evaded attempts by Officers to contact him. However, working in partnership with the Wembley Police Warrant Office, he was tracked down by Trading Standards Officers and was then arrested by Bristol Police and brought back to Brent.
In Court, Clive Miles explained to the Magistrates that he hadn’t made any money selling the fakes but enjoyed watching the latest films before they were officially released. He admitted it was a stupid thing to do and regretted it.
Speaking after the case, Bill Bilon Director of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards said, “This is just another in a long line of illegal DVD sellers that my Officers have brought to book in the past few years. This sentence undoubtedly shows that the Courts are beginning to acknowledge the fact that the sale of counterfeit goods is a serious matter. This case has also demonstrates defendants who attempt to evade justice by absconding will be tracked down and once located, brought to justice.”
Notes for Editors
• The Trade Marks Act 1994 creates criminal offences if a person sells, offers to sell or possesses for supply, counterfeit goods and a breach of this Act could result in an unlimited fine and or up to ten years imprisonment
• For further information on this press release, please contact Jon Ashby on 020 8937 5514.
Cowboy builder rounded up after taking Homeowners for a ride
Rogue builder Thomas Joseph Shanahan, 48, who preyed on two unsuspecting homeowners, was sent to jail for 6 months at Harrow Crown Court on Tuesday, 9th February 2010.
Shanahan of Wilsham Street, Notting Hill, had earlier pleaded guilty on 26th November 2009, to two charges of obtaining property by deception contrary to the Theft Act 1968 and fraud by false representation under the Fraud Act 2006.
The Court heard that Shanahan had taken £17,500 in cash from a Brent resident and completed only a very small amount of extremely poor work before walking away and refusing to return, having given the victim a false address on his business card and invoices.
The home owner had wanted a ground floor extension but once Shanahan had demolished an existing lean-to and bodged the new foundations, he left the job in a condition that Mr Recorder T Owen QC described as “a building site”.
Brent Council Building Control Department had earlier put a stop to the shoddy work and reported the matter to Brent and Harrow Trading Standards, who traced Shanahan to his mother’s address in Kensington and Chelsea.
Further enquiries identified Shanahan had also conned an elderly victim who had paid £3,000 in cash only to have received a small amount of poor quality work on her roof before Shanahan walked off having given her paperwork bearing a false address.
Trading Standards Officers subsequently executed an entry warrant at the address where Shanahan was arrested and business cards identical to the ones given to the victim were recovered.
In a formal interview with Trading Standards Officers and the Police, Shanahan insisted that he had carried out work to the value of the sums paid and that he had previously lived at the address on his business cards.
But when faced with a Crown Court trial he changed his mind and pleaded guilty. On sentencing Mr Shanahan, Mr Recorder T Owen QC read out part of one of the consumer’s witness statements detailing how the matter had affected them as follows: “I feel that I have been cheated out of a large amount of money by a dishonest person who knowingly left work largely unfinished and then refused to return and put the situation right”. Mr Recorder T Owen QC then said that he thought that this was a fair summary of what Mr Shanahan had done.
After the case Bill Bilon, Director of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards said: ““This case is one of the worst possible examples of a bogus builder deceiving and defrauding the public. Let it be a warning to those who try to exploit the vulnerable in their homes that they will face harsh punishment.
“I also hope this raises awareness and puts residents on their guard against such rogues. Our advice is simple.
“If you want work done on your property then seek several quotes and recommendations from friends and family. Do not deal with anybody who calls at your door unannounced. Agree a price and staged payments and get everything in writing. Most importantly, contact Trading Standards if you think things might be going wrong – we are there to help you.”
Notes for Editors –
• The Cancellation of Contracts Made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc Regulations 2008 state that a consumer must be given a written cooling off period of seven days when agreeing to a contract at home. If this notice is not provided then the contract is not legally binding and is unenforceable without a court order.
• The Fraud Act 2006 creates criminal offences for persons such as rogue traders who dishonestly make false representations for gain or fail to disclose information when they are under a legal obligation to do so. The maximum penalty on conviction in the Crown Court for such offences is an unlimited fine and ten years imprisonment.
• The recent Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 creates a general duty on traders to trade fairly. The law creates criminal offences where traders indulge in high–pressure sales tactics or mislead consumers regarding goods and services.
• The Business Names Act 1985 states that a trader must provide a consumer with their full contact details and legal identity on any paperwork issued.
• For further information contact Simon Legg on 020 8937 5522
Underage Shish sale not a ‘cherry’ good idea
On 16th February 2010, a local retailer was fined £650 by Brent Magistrates Court and ordered to pay a further £650 in prosecution costs to the London Boroughs of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service.
The Court heard that on 9th July 2009, Trading Standards Officers were carrying out an operation using two 15 year old child volunteers to monitor the sale of age restricted products. The undercover children entered ‘Preston Food & Wine’, situated at 268 Preston Road Wembley and asked the shop keeper, Mr Munir Hussain, for ‘Shish’ tobacco.
Mr Hussain (age 51) of The Mount, Wembley, sold the children a packet of Cherry flavoured ‘Shish’ tobacco for £11.00 without asking them for identification or questioning them as to their age. This was despite that fact that tobacco products can not be sold to anyone under the age of 18.
Shisha is a herbal tobacco product which is often fruit scented and is smoked using a water-pipe. There is a common misconception that smoking Shisha is less harmful than other forms of tobacco but the Department of Health state that smoking a Shisha pipe is as bad for someone’s health as smoking cigarettes.
Mr Hussain claimed to run the business on behalf of his daughter, although evidence gathered during the Trading Standards investigation revealed she had little to do with the business. He explained that he was not aware the Shish contained tobacco despite a warning to this effect on the box and the fact that Mr Hussain had purchased the product himself from the wholesalers.
In passing sentence, the Magistrate’s Chairman stated that they had taken Mr Hussain’s early guilty plea into account when passing their sentence. However, he added “The fact is that tobacco and children are a bad mix. Children should be protected and that is what the law is there for”.
After the case Bill Bilon, Director of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards said, “This case demonstrates the fact that there are many varied products, such as flavoured ‘Shish’ which contain tobacco. Businesses must make sure that not only are all their staff fully trained with regards to age restricted goods, but they must also be able to recognise different age restricted products and be vigilant at all times.
“This Service has developed a range of free measures aimed at helping retailers comply with legislation which restricts the sale of certain products to children. We currently have over 300 retailers who are members of our ‘Age Restricted Products Responsible Trader Scheme’. All members receive an information pack which gives them invaluable information and training aids helping their business to comply with this type of legislation. We are looking to recruit as many members as possible so that within Brent and Harrow, by working with shop owners, we can eradicate these sales from taking place. Businesses who would like information on how to join this free scheme should call the Trading Standards Service on 020 8937 5555 (option 2).
“Further, the Service has also launched its ‘Shop the Shop’ campaign encouraging school children and members of the public to send a free anonymous text message by sending the word ‘shop’ to ‘80800’ and followed by their message giving details of businesses which they suspect are supplying age restricted goods to children”.
Notes for editors
1. For further information on this press release please contact Simon Legg on 020 8937 5522.
2. The legislation prohibiting the sale of Tobacco to those under the age of eighteen is the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991. The Act carries a level 4 fine to a maximum of £2500.00.
Local retailer sells knife to child aged 12
On 5th February 2010, a local retailer, Mr Jalaluddin Choudhry was fined £1,200 by Harrow Magistrates Court and ordered to pay £1000 in prosecution costs to the London Boroughs of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service. Mr Jalaluddin Choudhry owner of Splendour, trading from 265 Station Road, Harrow, HA1 2TB, pleaded guilty to the sale of a very large carving knife to a child under 18 years of age.
The Court heard that on 21st July 2009, Trading Standards Officers were carrying out an operation in the Harrow area using two child volunteers aged Twelve and Fourteen, to monitor the sale of knives to children. The children entered the shop and the 12 year old selected a knife and took it to the counter. The employee, made the sale without thinking as the child was clearly under 18.
As part of the investigation, the seller informed Trading Standards that she had not been trained and was verbally told two years prior that knives were age restricted and were only to be sold to adults aged 18 or over. The owner of Splendour (Mr Jalaluddin Choudhry) informed Trading Standards Officers that he did train his staff verbally two years prior on such matters but was not able to offer any written records.
In passing sentence the Magistrates stated that the selling of knives to children is a very serious offence and that this knife with a twelve inch blade, was particularly nasty. The chairman of the bench went on to state that though Mr Choudhry entered an early guilty plea, the level of the penalty must act as a deterrent to other traders.
After the case Bill Bilon, Director of Trading Standards for the London Boroughs of Brent and Harrow said, “I am shocked that a trader in Harrow has sold a large bladed knife to someone so young and obviously under eighteen. It is time that retailers took their responsibilities seriously and provided fully documented training to all their staff. I am pleased that the magistrates recognised the seriousness of this offence when passing sentence.”
My officers have developed a range of measures aimed at helping retailers comply with this type of legislation. We currently have over 100 retailers who are members of our free ‘Age Restricted Products Responsible Trader Scheme’. All members receive an information pack which gives them invaluable information and training aids which can help their businesses to comply with this type of legislation. We are looking to recruit as many members as possible so that within Brent and Harrow, by working with business, we can eradicate these sales from taking place. Businesses who would like information on how to join this free scheme should call the Trading Standards Service on 0208 937 5555 (option 2)”.
Notes for editors
1. For further information on this press release please contact Simon Martin or Sanjay Thakrar on 020 8937 5533 or 020 8937 5526 respectively.
2. The legislation which prohibits the sale of knives is the Criminal Justices Act 1988
3. To make a complaint about a high street trader in the boroughs of Brent and Harrow or an online trader nationally whom you suspect of supplying age restricted products to children, consumers can call Trading Standards on 020 8937 5555.
4. To make a complaint about goods and services purchased consumers can call Consumer Direct on 08454 04 05 06. Consumer Direct is the first point of contact for consumer advice. Complaints requiring investigation are passed to the Trading Standards Service to action locally. Alternatively guidance can be found at www.consumerdirect.gov.uk
5. More information on the work of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service please see our website at www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/brent&harrow
There is no substitute for the real thing
On 27th January 2010, a local restaurant and bar was fined a total of £2500 by Harrow Magistrates Court and ordered to pay a further £1464.00 in prosecution costs to the London Boroughs of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service.
This case was instigated as a result of a project conducted by the Trading Standards Service concerning the practice of substituting well known alcoholic brands of spirits with cheaper ones by unscrupulous restaurateurs and bar owners in Harrow.
The project was carried out using equipment supplied by the IFSP UK, (International Federation of Spirit Producers) which is able to distinguish genuine from non-genuine brands such as Gordon’s Gin, Smirnoff Vodka and numerous other well known makes of whisky, brandy and rum.
The court heard that on the evening of 22nd October 2008, Trading Standards Officers visited the restaurant and bar business owned by Freddy’s Ltd at 190 – 194 Station Road, Harrow, On arrival the officers identified themselves to the manager and explained the purpose of the visit.
Screen tests carried out on two bottles of Bacardi rum which were on display for sale confirmed that the contents were not genuine. As a result, formal samples were taken from both bottles and submitted to the public analyst for verification of the screen test results.
Following their tests the public analyst confirmed that neither bottles contained genuine Bacardi rum.
In mitigation the Director of Freddy’s Limited, Mr Farhad Davarzani, informed the court that he could not explain why the Bacardi had been substituted or who had done it, and stated that he had no knowledge of it being done. He said that he had been trading since 2001 and employed 10 staff, 5 of whom worked behind the bar.
The Magistrates gave the defendant company credit for an early guilty plea. However, they stated that these types of offences are widespread which was costing the drinks industry millions of pounds and was harmful to consumers.
They also stated that it was clear that the defendant company had insufficient systems in place to prevent such offences from occurring.
After the hearing, Bill Bilon, Head of Trading Standards for the London Boroughs of Brent and Harrow said, “This case demonstrates that business owners must make sure that appropriate processes and procedures are in place to avoid these types of offences from being committed. This Service will not hesitate in instituting legal proceedings in cases where the interests of consumers and legitimate businesses are being harmed”.
Notes for editors
1. For further information on this press release please contact Simon Martin or Sanjay Thakrar on 020 8937 5533 or 020 8937 5526.
2. The legislation prohibiting the substituting of alcohol is the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulation 2008 and implemented by the European Communities Act 1972. The Act carries a maximum fine of £5000.
3. To make a complaint about a high street trader in the boroughs of Brent and Harrow whom you suspect of substituting alcohol consumers can call Trading Standards on 020 8937 5555.
More information on the work of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service please see our website at www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/brent&harrow
Two Underage Sales Cases
On 19th January 2010, two prosecutions undertaken by the London Boroughs of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service were successfully concluded at Brent Magistrates Court with respect to the sale of alcohol and cigarettes to underage children. Details of the cases are given below.
Case 1
Mr Khalid Mohammed, (48) of Kenwyn Drive, Neasden, pleaded guilty to an offence of supplying two bottles of Budwieser to school girls aged 14 and 16 from his grocery shop trading as ‘Midnight Food and Wine’ at Neasden Lane, London, NW10.
The Court heard that on the 14th December 2008, Trading Standards Officers were carrying out an operation using child volunteers to monitor the sale of alcohol to those below the legal age limit of 18. The children entered the shop and selected their alcoholic bottles of drink. They took them to the counter where one of Mr Mohammed’s members of staff sold the Budwiser to the girls without asking any questions as to their age.
During the hearing the Magistrates were told by the prosecutor that since the sale Mr Mohammed had joined the Trading Standards ‘Responsible Trader Scheme’ which provides local traders with a framework of measures which businesses can adopt to prevent underage sales of age restricted products.
As part of his mitigation Mr Mohammed apologised to the court and stated “I am very strict with underage sales and have joined the Responsible Trader Scheme”. He assured the Magistrates that procedures were now in place in his shop to avoid underage sales from taking place in the future.
The Magistrates were informed that Mr Mohammed had a conviction for an identical offence dating back to 2004. Having given him credit for his early guilty plea, they fined Mr Mohammed £350, along with a victim surcharge of £15 and prosecution costs of £900 to the London Boroughs of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service.
Case 2
In a second case, Mr Rohullah Jawaid (40), of Pinner View, Harrow, pleaded guilty to selling a packet of ‘Mayfair’ cigarettes to a 15 year old boy from ‘Broadway Supermarket’ at 145 Cricklewood Broadway, London, NW2, where he was employed as a sales assistant.
This case arose after another Trading Standards operation on 9th July 2009, during which an underage child volunteer was asked to attempt to test purchase a packet of cigarettes from the premises.
The Magistrates heard how Mr Jawaid had been working in the shop for 8 - 9 months at the time of the sale. He had admitted to Trading Standards Officers who had subsequently interviewed him that he had received training in relation to underage sales and knew what identification to ask for when dealing with age restricted products. However, he added that when the sale took place he was on the telephone and thought the 15 year old boy looked 18. Therefore, he didn’t ask the boy his age or for any identification and handed the cigarettes over.
During the hearing Mr Jawid told the Magistrates “I thought the boy was over 18, I regret the offence and am sorry for my mistake”.
Mr Jawid was sentenced to a one year conditional discharge and ordered to pay a contribution of £100 towards Brent and Harrow Trading Standard’s costs of bring the case to Court. Whilst passing sentence the Chairperson of the Magistrates stated, “You should have made some enquiries. I am sure you have learnt your lesson now”.
Speaking after the cases, Bill Bilon, Director of Brent & Harrow Trading Standards Service said, “Preventing the sale of age restricted goods to children remains a priority to the Service. There are numerous simple procedures that retailers can follow to prevent such sales. I would encourage any local business that trades in age restricted goods to join our free ‘Responsible Trader Scheme’ so we can provide them a training DVD along with guidance to prevent such sales taking place to under age children”.
“In addition, the Service operates its ‘Shop the Shop’ initiative where young people, members of the public or businesses can report shops selling age restricted goods by sending a free anonymous text message to 80800. The text should start with the word ‘shop’ followed by the message giving details of businesses who they suspect as supplying age restricted goods to children”.
Notes for editors
1. For further information on this press release please contact Simon Legg on 020 8937 5522.
2. It is a criminal offence to sell alcohol or cigarettes to those under the age of eighteen.
3. For more information on the work of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service please see our website at www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/brent&harrow
Crafty market trader lands himself cut of justice
On 15th December 2009 at Brent Magistrates Court, Mr Mohamed Sajid Khan (age 31) of Clewer Hill Road, Windsor pleaded guilty to an offence under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for supplying a Stanley type knife to a person under the age of 18.
Mr Khan who had previous convictions dated December 2005 and January 2007 for identical offences was ordered to wear an electronic tag and maintain a curfew at his home between 08.00 and 15.00hrs every Saturday and Sunday until 18th April 2010. He must also pay a contribution to the prosecution’s costs of £800.
The Court heard that the prosecution brought by Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service, arose following an undercover test purchasing exercise at Wembley Market that had been conducted in partnership with the Metropolitan Police as part of ‘Operation Blunt’ which focused on reducing knife crime across London.
On 22nd February 2009, a 15 year old school boy working with Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service was asked to purchase a knife from the defendant’s stall which specialised in the sale of tools at Wembley Market. The boy was able to buy a ‘Stanley’ type knife for only a £1 from one of the defendant’s employees who didn’t ask any questions verify the boys age despite the fact you need to be over 18 years old to purchase a knife.
Evidence was later gathered from the seller who said he had worked for Mr Mohamed Sajid Khan on one occasion before at the market but had never been given any training in relation to the sale of knives.
Mr Mohamed Sajid Khan told the Magistrate’s that he was now unemployed living at home with his parents having given up his business and that he no longer trades at Wembley Market.
When passing a sentence, the Magistrate’s gave Mr Khan credit for the fact that he wasn’t the one who actually sold the knife. The Chairman commented “It is a very serious offence selling a knife to an underage person. Unfortunately this has happened twice and you must have been aware of your responsibilities”.
After the case Bill Bilon, Director of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards said, “This case illustrates the importance of giving the sale of age restricted good such as knives, the full consideration that they deserve. We work hard with local businesses developing a range of measures aimed at helping retailers comply with underage sales legislation which includes our ‘Responsible Trader Scheme’. All members receive an information pack giving comprehensive advice and training material to help them ensure age restricted products are sold appropriately. Any businesses who would like information on how to join this free scheme should call us on 0208 937 5555 (option 2)”.
“Further, the Service has also launched its ‘Shop the Shop’ campaign which encourages youngsters and members of the public to send a free anonymous text message by sending the word ‘shop’ to ‘80800’ and followed by their message giving details of businesses which they suspect as supplying age restricted goods to children”.
Notes for editors
1. For further information on this press release please contact Simon Legg on 020 8937 5522.
2. To make a complaint about a business you suspect is illegally supplying age restricted goods you can call Consumer Direct on 08454 04 05 06. Alternatively, you can send us an anonymous text by by sending the word ‘shop’ to ‘80800’ followed by a message giving details of businesses which you suspect as supplying age restricted goods to children”.
3. More information on the work of Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service please see our website at www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/brent&harrow
Trading Standards gets UK's biggest car clockers 27 months each
Two rogue car dealers were jailed for 27 months each at Isleworth Crown Court today (Friday 11 December 2009) after pleading guilty to conspiracy to defraud in the UK's largest car clocking case.
The case brought by Brent and Harrow Trading Standards involved 320 cars with a total value of £1.5m and a known illegal profit estimated at £250,000. The cars were advertised across the UK with known victims of the fraud from across the south east of England.
The two men, Emat Ghulamhan, aged 26, of Lime Lodge, Forest Road, Sunbury-on-Thames, Middlesex, and Noor Ahmed Sadiqi, aged 42, of Stuart Road, Richmond, sold the cars via an Auto Trader dealership site under the name Emat and Son Cars, of Merrick Road, Southall, London, or from a dealership at the same address.
The two were arrested after a complaint to Brent and Harrow Trading Standards in May 2008 from a Harrow women who bought a supposed 51000 miles VW Polo for £2750 in part exchange for her 98000 miles car of the same make and model.
But the previous owner she called soon after told her the car had done at least 97000 miles. Three weeks later she saw her old car for sale on the Emat dealership site with a mileage of 64100.
Trading Standards officers started monitoring the site and found 23 more clocked cars that had been sold by the dealership. Many of these vehicles had been bought from motor auctions only to appear soon after with reduced mileages.
The officers made undercover purchases of cars from the Southall premises and on 24 and 26 March 2009 warrants were executed and computer equipment, mobile phones, documentation and 26 suspected clocked cars seized.
Further extensive investigations by Trading Standards revealed a total of 320 clocked cars had been sold or offered for sale by the defendants.
Sentencing the pair, Judge Johnson said both men had been equally culpable in a well planned and highly skilled conspiracy to defraud but that because of their guilty plea their sentences would be discounted by 25 per cent.
After the case Trading Standards Director Bill Bilon said: "Car clocking hits the victim twice; first because they pay substantially more than they should and secondly because more wear and tear on the car often means more costly servicing and maintenance. You should try and get a second-hand vehicle independently assessed or at least ask for a full service history."
For further information on this press release, please contact Simon Martin on 020 8937 5533 or Winston brooks on 020 8937 5534
London Boroughs of Brent and Harrow, Trading Standards Service,
Brent House, 3rd floor, East Wing, 349-357 High Road, Wembley, HA9 6BZ
Telephone: (020) 8937 5555 [option 2] (Answerphone Out of Normal Hours): (020) 8937 5555
Fax: (020) 8937 5544
Internet World Wide Web http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/brent&harrow/
Electronic Mail: trading.standards@brent.gov.uk
Copyright © Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service - August 2011
