Palmers Green restaurant fined for allowing smoking (From Enfield Independent)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news & views by texting ENFIELD NEWS to 80360, or email us
Palmers Green restaurant fined for allowing smoking
12:14pm Friday 31st December 2010 in News By Elizabeth Pears
A PALMERS Green restaurant owner who kept his customers happy by letting them smoke indoors has been fined for flouting the anti-smoking ban.
Michalakis Roushias, who owns El Greco, in Green Lanes, is the first person in Enfield to be prosecuted for failing to stop customers from having a cheeky puff.
He was able to avoid a jail sentence but ordered to pay Enfield Council £3612 in costs after pleading guilty to two charges of breaching the legislation.
Councillor Chris Bond, cabinet member for environment said: "We have had complete compliance from traders in four years thanks in part to regular visits and proactive publicity. However, I am sure he and others know now that it’s not a joke when we say 'put that light out'."
Officers had received complaints of people being seen smoking in El Greco over the past year-and-a-half.
Several visits had been made to the premises and patrons had been found smoking prompting them to issue Mr Roushias with both verbal and written warnings.
But he was caught ignoring the advice on March 26 when officers made a surprise visit and caught someone smoking.
At a second visit on April 3, a further two people were found smoking.
Comments(7)
chas
says...
3:00pm Fri 31 Dec 10
If somebody was to smoke in a court of law would the court be guilty of allowing smoking?
If somebody was using a moble phone whild driving, would the person using the phone or the owner of the car be fined?
bajowh
says...
10:19am Sat 1 Jan 11
David from New Mills
says...
12:52pm Sat 1 Jan 11
David from New Mills
says...
12:59pm Sat 1 Jan 11
2:30pm Fri 31 Dec 10
The trouble with tug's contention is that the vast majority of the populace, other than a handful of F2S diehards, are content with the status quo.
David from New Mills
says...
1:13pm Sat 1 Jan 11
3:00pm Fri 31 Dec 10.
A.1. Yes, unless the court were considered to be exempt as a Crown property. I would welcome clarification on this point from other posters.
A.2. The person using the phone whild (sic) driving, assuming he was prosecuted and found guilty.
Trust this helpful to confused charlie.
SalsaJo
says...
12:10pm Thu 27 Jan 11
tug wilson says...
2:30pm Fri 31 Dec 10