Future of Lancaster restaurant in doubt after Home Office visits find illegal foreign workers

People with links to Bangladesh have been found working illegally at Bombay Balti in China Street in various visits by Home Office immigration inspectors since 2015.

And officials say more than £75,000 remains unpaid from a total £85,000 in civil penalties owed by companies which have owned the restaurant over time.

Home Office officials want councillors to revoke the premises licence, saying other measures, such as additional conditions or a suspension, would not be enough to act as a deterrent to the licence holder and other businesses.

However, a man named as the restaurant’s premises licence holder says circumstances have changed and many issues have been tackled.

Bombay Balti is the focus of a Lancaster City Council premises licensing review, requested by the Home Office.

A Home Office report states: “We have grounds to believe the licence holder has failed to meet objectives to prevent crime and disorder, as illegal working has been identified.

Immigration enforcement staff visited the restaurant four times between 2015 and 2025.

"On each visit, they encountered a number of individuals who were identified as working illegally.”

The restaurant’s premises licence was granted in 2021 and has been held by Nazrul Islam Khan, of Torrisholme Road, Lancaster.

He is also named as the premises supervisor and has a personal licence.

He and Zakia-El-Mahni, described as another licence holder, have both been notified of the review, where they can give their views.

The Home Office report adds: “Bombay Balti has a history of employing illegal workers and, consequently, civil penalties were issued to the liable party.

"All previous civil penalties remain unpaid. Evidence suggests the business has engaged in ‘phoenixism’, by liquidating previous companies and reopening in a new identity to evade financial sanctions, continuing with non-compliant activity under the control of the same connected persons.”

The Companies House register says the restaurant is linked to a company called Asha1Lancaster Ltd, formed in 2023 but currently in liquidation.

During Home Office inspections, Bombay Balti workers were interviewed about hiring, documents and evidence of their right to work.

In one interview, an acting manager said he had been in charge of hiring staff in the past but, at the time of the inspection, a person called Tojomul Hoqueit was responsible.

When asked if a kitchen porter was allowed to work in the UK, the acting manager told inspectors: “I thought he was. He has permission to work on his card.”

In another interview, a worker was asked if he had presented his documents before being offered a job.

He replied: ”No, because I’m known as being here for 30 years.”

When asked if his employer knew he was not allowed to work in the UK, he said: “No, he doesn’t know.”

Another worker said he had a National Insurance card but was paid cash and did not pay any tax.

According to reports, the first penalty of £10,000 was issued in 2015 to Naz Enterprise (Lancs) Ltd, for one individual with no right to work. The company objected but the penalty was maintained and £8,200 remains unpaid.

In 2019, a £20,000 penalty was issued to the same company for another illegal worker. No objection was received but it remains unpaid. That company was dissolved in 2022.

in 2021, a £10,000 penalty was issued to Bombay Balti Lancaster Ltd for another similar case. No objection was received but £3,100 remains unpaid. That company was dissolved in 2024.

In early 2025, a £45,000 penalty was issued to Asha1Lancaster Ltd, for the same reason. No objection was received but the penalty is unpaid. The company has been in liquidation since summer 2025.

Bombay Balti was approached for comment ahead of the meeting, and the various points were put to Mr Khan.

He said the restaurant management had changed and a woman named Zakia-El-Mahni was now the licence holder and would attend the licensing review.

Mr Khan added: “The meeting will just be about formalities and the alcohol licence. There’s no reason for me to go. But if they want me to, I can. If they want to revoke the premises licence, they can. But I’m not the premises licence holder any more.”

Regarding the penalties, he said: “That’s not all related to me. It has been dealt with one way or another. There have been changes over the years but we shall see what happens at the review.”

The case is due to be heard by a city council licensing sub-committee on Thursday March 5 at 10.30am.