A bar has had its licence taken away after allegations of trading after hours and running an irresponsible £1-a-shot drinks deal.

The Dog House in Stockton town centre lived up to its title with the licensing authorities after CCTV showed people coming and going up to four hours after it was meant to close.

The bar’s supervisor claimed he was carrying out refurbishments in the early hours, and promised to sack a member of staff who let people in.

Read more: Man shot on Tilery Estate, Norton, and 24-year-old arrested

He would not provide CCTV inside the bar to back up his account, citing data protection and the threat of a £500,000 fine. And he disputed that a £1 drinks promotion encouraged binge drinking.

Cleveland Police argued the bar was undermining the prevention of crime and disorder as it applied for a licence review. Licensing officer PC Andrew Thorpe said: “We don’t bring these applications lightly and they’re always a last resort, but we’ve had no option.”

He told how street CCTV showed people going in and out long after 1am closing on May 13, June 21 and September 1. He showed footage to Stockton Council’s licensing sub-committee, saying at least 10 people were inside the Prince Regent Street bar at one point.

He said: “The activities give the impression that the premises is open… With the randomness of the arrivals and departures, it’s difficult to come up with another explanation than there being licensable activity going on.

“I’d love to be able to come up with a different reason for them all being there. But on three separate occasions until the wee hours of the morning, I can’t think of another reason. This isn’t just a one-off.”

Edward Hayes, director and secretary of licence holder Leadwise Leisure which runs from the bar’s address, said he could prove no trading took place after hours: “I do not sell alcohol after 12.30.”

He said people were helping move furniture in June: “We were carrying out refurbishment works. What you’re seeing is a group of people that have volunteered to help me move tables out of the way, help with the paint and get the pub cleaned up afterwards.”

Asked why he was refurbishing at 3 to 4am, he said: “So that I could trade the next day without a problem. It seemed a sensible idea at the time.

“Once there were concerns about licensable activity, that’s when I stopped all overnight repairs.” He said other people were there for minutes as they used the toilet and left or got taxis.

He added: “The last date of trading for the premises was August 17, and all alcohol was removed, which was at the time very little. We’d actually shut to get the last of the internal works done.”

Get the latest news, sports, and entertainment delivered straight to your device by subscribing to The Northern Echo here. 

He said he was not there at the time of the September footage: “I will be taking keys off the person that has been letting people in that night, and they will be out of their job. I am not going to have that activity going on.

“That person will no longer be working for me. There is no stock on the premises.”

PC Thorpe also pointed to a Facebook post promoting single spirits with mixers for £1, saying this would be classed as an irresponsible promotion.

Mr Hayes said this was on SIRF weekend and customers could buy only one drink at a time, which he said avoided binge drinking. He said it came from only one bottle each of three house spirits, which did not run out.

Council licensing officers supported the police. Team leader Leanne Maloney-Kelly said: “The public space CCTV has shown comings and goings at the premises until at least 5am, four hours after the closing time. Both of these offences, if proven, are actually criminal offences under the Licensing Act.

“Mr Hayes has failed to engage with officers, failed to turn up for meetings and interviews and we feel he’s breached his licence conditions.

“Mr Hayes has not provided any of the internal CCTV requested, which would prove or disprove any of the officers’ concerns.”

Asked why he did not provide the CCTV, as required by licence conditions, Mr Hayes said he had worked in the industry for 15 years and was told he could not supply the footage without a data subject access request and paper trail.

The council said such a request was not needed, but Mr Hayes said it would be a crime not to abide by data protection law and regulation: “If I don’t, I am liable for a £500,000 fine per breach. I do not want my business to go bankrupt.”

Cllr Clare Gamble said: “The CCTV footage is the one thing that could convince us that your story is factually correct. If not there’s a risk that you will lose your licence.

“I’m astounded, if that’s the one thing that can prove that there’s maintenance and repairs going in, that you wouldn’t supply that footage.”

She asked: “Do you think your explanation of all these different instances is a bit far-fetched?”

Mr Hayes replied: “No because a quick check of my Instagram feed will back up that maintenance has been done.”

After officers noted a “gradual decline” in the building’s maintenance, with smashed windows boarded up for months, Mr Hayes said it had been “left in an awful state” when he took it over but he intended to transform it and it was being brought up to standard.

Cllr Mick Moore, chairing the committee, said they decided to revoke the licence because of serious breaches. He said the CCTV outside was “sufficient to indicate the supply of alcohol outside licensable hours”.

He said there was no excuse for not disclosing the internal CCTV and the early-hours activity caused concern which was not swayed by Mr Hayes’ explanations.

Mr Hayes replied: “I will be appealing. I will also seek clarity on the CCTV issue.”