AN INDIAN restaurant in north London has lost its licence after it was found to have repeatedly employed illegal workers.
Harrow council determined that the evidence suggested that using illegal workers was a “systemic approach” to running the premises and it had a “lack of trust” in the business to comply with the law.
Harrow council’s Licensing Panel chose to strip Mumbai Local, an Indian restaurant on Streatfield Road, of its licence at a meeting on August 20, the outcome of which has now been made public.
The review came after Immigration Officers found people working there illegally on three separate visits dating back to 2023.
The panel found that the restaurant owner had “disregarded the law” on employing illegal workers on a number of occasions and it “had no trust” in them to remedy the situation.
An option to simply suspend the licence was considered but the panel concluded that it had “no confidence” in the licence holder’s ability to comply with their legal obligations and had “no choice” but to revoke it entirely.
The Home Office had called on Harrow council to review Mumbai Local’s licence due to a “continual pattern” of hiring illegal workers.
Immigration Officers told the panel that six illegal workers had been found at the restaurant following a visit on November 16, 2023, with a further two found during a follow up visit on July 4, 2024.
A compliance check was carried out on July 17, 2025, where a man who had previously been arrested was present on the premises, as well as another lady who told officers she would get the manager before disappearing.
On August 15, 2024, the company running the restaurant was given a £120,000 civil penalty for employing two people who did not have the right to work. This was reduced to £60,000 for employing one illegal worker following an appeal. A further appeal has been lodged but this remains ongoing.
The premises licence holder (PLH) “held their hands up” to the illegal workers being on the premises in November 2023, according to the meeting minutes, but claimed that the July 2024 incident “had more to it”. The PLH claims this worker came to the country having been sponsored by an IT company that went bust so he was out of work. They suggested the man is “like a son” to them and provided free food to him as he had nowhere to go and believes he “has a duty towards him”.
The PLH tried to suggest that the panel suspend the licence for just one month, claiming this would already “be crippling” to the business but the panel would “never see him again” as they had no other sanctions against them. However, under questioning the PLH admitted that there had been issues at another premises they own and they were forced to pay a £30,000 fine.
Ultimately, the panel didn’t feel the option of a suspension and additional conditions imposed on the licence “would be an appropriate remedy”. It determined that it “did not have the confidence in the PLH’s ability to comply with his legal obligations and had no option but to use their powers to revoke the licence.”
(Local Democracy Reporting Service)
