A beauty salon operator in Tower Hamlets offering massage, acupuncture and herbal treatments has been fined £500 for continuing to operate without the proper license.
Primo Remedy, a parlor on Wentworth Street, like other beauty establishments, required a special license to safely offer these treatments.
In January, director Ming Chan and her company Z&Z823 Ltd were charged by Tower Hamlets Council with operating without a license. Both parties pleaded guilty in court.
Mr Zhang was fined £1,200 with costs and a victim surcharge, and the company itself was fined £500. The company closed in January.
Councilor Kabir Hussain, Tower Hamlets Cabinet Member for Environment and Climate Emergency, said in a statement: Failure to do so is dangerous.
“Council teams are actively inspecting premises to ensure they comply with all necessary regulations and will prosecute those who do not comply.”
The Primo Remedy incident comes amid renewed scrutiny of massage parlors in east London.
past allegations
Primo Remedy was one of three east London massage parlors accused of operating “brothel-like” premises at a licensing hearing in 2022.
The licensing board heard how Primo Remedy allegedly provided a “special massage” to a witness in October 2021 and referred to him as a “handyman” before running his hand over the man’s chest.
Before that, the witness was ordered by the worker to remove his underwear and was not provided with anything to hide.
Tom Lewis, from the licensing and safety team, told the committee the facility was being operated in an inappropriate manner. “In conclusion, massage parlors offering services of a sexual nature often lead to the exploitation of vulnerable women and increase the risk of infectious diseases.”
A test purchase carried out by the council revealed instances where customers were allegedly provided with illegal services, and the Environmental Health and Safety team recommended that the special treatment licenses of these premises not be renewed.
However, Nigel Carter, who represented Ming Chan, disputed the report as hearsay and stressed the need for concrete evidence.
He said: “[The witness] This refers to the fact that he was offered a special massage and subsequent “handi” while the therapist made a hand gesture on his waist, but he was not sure what the hand gesture was. , did not say whether it was imitating masturbation, and continued that the gesture was made above his hips, not his genitals. ”
He added that “extras” were not sexual services and could refer to a variety of things.