Family restaurant faces £2.5m fine over extractor fan after council uses anti-drug dealer laws

Sahin and Ahmet Gok, who have run Meze Mangal in Lewisham in south London for over 25 years, are facing a bill of £2.5 million after installing an extractor fan on the side of the restaurant without planning permission.

Labour-run Lewisham Council has been accused of exploiting the Proceeds of Crime Act, which allows authorities to seize assets and cash generated through illegal activity, to make up for a significant deficit in their accounts.

The local authority is projected to have a budget shortfall of £30m this year, and stands to gain almost £1 million if it is able to obtain the full £2.5 million from the brothers.

The council said its decision to press ahead with the proposed fine is to deter businesses from breaching planning laws in future, and that it's not using the Proceeds of Crime Act to help cover its deficit. It added it's committed to working with the owners to resolve the issue.

Read more: Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood warns Far Right rhetoric ‘getting out of control’

Sahin, 57, told LBC that he feels “betrayed” by the council’s actions and opened up about the social stigma he and his family have faced since being pursued under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

“Just because of a fan, somebody gets charged £2.5 million - that is disgraceful.

“When you get treated like a drug dealer, you get bad things from the community. At the end of the day, nobody believes someone can be fined £2.5m just because of an extractor fan.

“We can’t really concentrate on our business. It’s taken so much from my life. It [hurts] a lot - especially when there’s family involved.

“After all this, I don’t even want to come to work”.

The brothers face up to 14 years in prison if they fail to pay the crippling penalty.

Meze Mangal received a complaint from a neighbour in 2014 about the smell coming from its kitchens ending up in their property.

In response, they installed a new extractor fan, but failed to obtain the necessary planning permission. In 2019, they applied for retrospective permission, which was dismissed by the council.

Two years ago, the brothers were found guilty of breaching planning laws after failing to turn up to a court appearance. At the time, they were caring for their terminally ill father, and claim they missed the instruction to attend court after being given just one day’s notice.

The figure of £2.5 million was reached by auditors analysing Meze Mangal’s business records over a six-year period.

The council argues that the restaurant’s turnover - generated through sales of its famous kebabs, koftes and moussakas - represents a financial benefit of crime.

The brothers also saw their bank accounts frozen and passports seized after they were deemed to be a ‘flight risk’. The council stated the confiscation of the brothers’ passports was a decision made by the courts.

The Proceeds of Crime Act is often used against some of the most serious offenders, including drug dealers, people smugglers and gangs committing mass financial fraud.

The legislation allows the courts to look at the past six years of a person’s financial history to determine how much of their income has been the result of criminal activity. This includes an audit of an individual’s properties, personal accounts and business records.

The burden of proof is then on the individual to prove that the income in these accounts were not generated through criminal activity, which can only be achieved by having the type of detailed financial records that many people simply don’t keep.

Local authorities are entitled to over a third of the funds recouped by investigations under the act. Critics believe the act therefore incentivises councils to go after local businesses.

“The council, like a lot of councils, are in huge financial difficulty,” explains local resident John Morgan, who has been supporting the brothers during their case.

“Nobody is suggesting the council shouldn’t go after criminals, and shouldn’t profit from going after real criminals [but] the council gains a 37.5% take for anything it prosecutes for. Therein, I think, lies the problem.

“[Councils] got this incredible tool from parliament called the Proceeds of Crime Act, and they said to them ‘go fishing for sharks’ and, really, what they’ve come up with are these little fish - the low-hanging fruit".

Local Labour MP Vicky Foxcroft told LBC she is disappointed by the council’s handling of the Meze Mangal case:

“Meze Mangal is a popular, family-run restaurant… While I appreciate that the council tried to find a resolution before taking the owners to court, I disagree that [the] Proceeds of Crime Act was the only option left.

“I do not believe it was intended to be used in cases like this. I will continue to work with the owners, councillors and council officers to find a resolution".

Green Councillor Liam Shrivastava, who is leader of the opposition in Lewisham, also expressed concerns about the case.

“Given the sums of money involved, residents need assurances that this isn’t being used to generate income for the council.

“Criminalising business owners, especially those from migrant backgrounds also has serious equality implications,” he added. “The council needs to show it has met its obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty".

Sahin believes that his Turkish background has played a part in the council’s actions.

“I don’t think we deserve all this… I didn’t want to say it, but the way I see it, is that it is a bit of racism - that is how I [feel]".

The council categorically denied this allegation.

While the authority has sought £2.5 million as part of its confiscation order, it will be down to a judge to determine how much of that figure the Gok brothers will be liable for. This verdict is due in March of next year.

While Sahin has many happy memories at Meze Mangal, raising his three children - a doctor, a teacher and an architect - at the restaurant, his ordeal with the council has led him to conclude he’ll leave Lewisham when proceedings have finished.

“When I sort all of this out, I will never do any business in Lewisham again,” he lamented. “I don’t even want to stay in Lewisham anymore - they have treated me like a criminal and I can’t even show my face out in public”.

The case has sparked a wider conversation around the use of the Proceeds of Crime Act.

In Parliament on Monday, North Dorset MP Simon Hoare questioned Communities Secretary Steve Reed about councils using the act against small businesses for planning infractions. Mr Reed committed to organising a meeting with Mr Hoare about the issue.

A spokesperson for Lewisham Council said: “The council’s decision to pursue a Confiscation Order arose from the importance of discouraging future criminal offending. The claim that the council is using the [Proceeds of Crime Act] process to address the council’s financial deficit is false and not supported by evidence. In general terms, the council does not determine the amount of any Confiscation Order. The Court will determine whether a Confiscation Order is appropriate, and if so, the amount.

“The owners have only recently and after failing to comply with multiple previous court directions provided additional evidence about their finances. All of that information will be considered by the court.

“The decision to direct that the owners forfeit their passports was made entirely by the judge in the Crown Court in response to the owners’ repeated failures to attend court or comply with court directions. The council did not suggest or make any representations about this decision.

“Any claim that the council is motivated by racism in pursuing these proceedings is also false and not supported by any evidence. In respect of the ongoing position the council hopes that the owners will choose to work with us to resolve matters".