Key Points
- A Stockport restaurant has lost its premises licence following a Home Office–initiated review tied to the discovery of an alleged illegal worker.
- Immigration officials uncovered an Albanian man reportedly living in the UK “illegally” while working without pay at the establishment.
- The Home Office separately issued a £40,000 civil penalty to the company registered at the site, which has not yet been paid.
- Stockport Council’s licensing, environment and safety sub‑committee accepted the Home Office application to review and ultimately revoke the licence.
- The licence holder, Renato Bakollari, told immigration officials he had sold the business three months earlier to a new owner, Ylli Vaka.
Stockport(Manchester Mirror)April 24, 2026 – A Stockport restaurant has lost its premises licence after a Home Office investigation found an Albanian man working at the business under what officials describe as illegal immigration status, prompting Stockport Council to revoke the licence tied to the venue. The case marks a rare instance in the borough where an immigration‑enforcement referral has directly triggered the cancellation of a premises licence for alcohol sales, rather than just a fine or warning.
Local outlet Nub News, which first detailed the probe, reported that immigration enforcement officers discovered the worker during an enforcement visit to Rossini Restaurant in Gatley, a suburban area within the Stockport borough. As reported by Nub News, the Albanian man was found working at the restaurant without being paid, raising concerns both about immigration compliance and modern‑slavery‑style labour practices.
The Home Office’s report, summarised by Nub News, states that the worker’s name has been redacted but that he entered the UK “illegally” and was subsequently identified as an “illegal worker” at Rossini Restaurant. Immigration officials wrote that the discovery of such employment “is a serious concern” and that the licence holder would have been aware of the statutory duty to ensure compliance with immigration rules as part of the licensing obligations.
Why did the Home Office seek licence revocation?
Nub News quoted the Home Office’s formal submission to Stockport Council, revealing that the department recommended the premises licence be revoked because the continued presence of an illegal worker on the site undermined the council’s licensing objectives. Specifically, the report argued that allowing the licence to persist would normalise a situation in which the venue was linked to unlawful employment and immigration breaches.
The Home Office further noted that a civil penalty of £40,000 had already been issued in August to La Bella Torino Ltd, the company registered at the Rossini Restaurant address. According to Nub News, that penalty has not been paid and has been passed to a debt collection agency, which immigration enforcement cited as evidence of a lack of corrective action by the business.
As summarised by Nub News, immigration officials wrote: “The licence holder would have been aware of his responsibilities to uphold the licensing objectives as they are clearly defined as part of the premises licence application. Immigration enforcement asks that the premises licence is revoked.” This statement was then formally put before Stockport Council’s licensing, environment and safety sub‑committee, which approved the revocation.
Who are the named parties in the case?
Nub News identified Renato Bakollari as the person originally named on the premises licence in Home Office documents. He told immigration officials that he had sold the company three months earlier and provided the name and contact details of the new owner, Ylli Vaka, who now controls the registered business at the premises.
Despite the change of ownership, Nub News wrote that the Home Office’s report treated the licence as remaining under the responsibility of the original licence‑holder in relation to the breaches that occurred before the transfer. The shift in ownership does not appear to have altered the council’s decision to revoke the licence, reflecting the weight authorities placed on the gravity of the immigration breach.
How did Stockport Council respond?
Writing for Nub News, the local journalist described how Stockport Council’s licensing, environment and safety sub‑committee considered the Home Office application on April 23, one day before the report was published. The sub‑committee’s decision was recorded as a formal review of the premises licence, which led to its revocation for the restaurant’s Leicester Road site in Gatley.
The council’s action effectively bars the business from continuing to sell alcohol at the premises under the existing licence, though the outlet remains open for food‑only service unless further enforcement steps are taken. Nub News did not report any immediate closure of the restaurant, focusing instead on the licensing outcome and the background immigration enforcement findings.
Background: How this fits into licensing and immigration policy
The revocation of Rossini Restaurant’s premises licence sits within a broader national trend in which immigration enforcement increasingly feeds into local‑authority licensing decisions. In London, for example, the Royal China restaurant in Baker Street had its premises licence revoked and was fined £360,000 in 2024 after a Home Office raid found nine staff working illegally, a case outlined by Harden’s and other outlets.
In both Stockport and London, authorities have justified licence cancellations by arguing that venues linked to illegal employment pose a risk to public order and the integrity of the licensing regime. The unpaid‑labour aspect in the Stockport case adds a further layer, drawing comparisons to modern‑slavery‑related concerns that have underpinned enforcement actions in other sectors.
Local‑authority licensing committees, such as Stockport’s sub‑committee, are legally required to consider whether continuing to allow alcohol sales at a given premises would be consistent with the four statutory licensing objectives: preventing crime and disorder, preventing public nuisance, protecting children from harm, and protecting public health. In this case, the Home Office’s submission framed the presence of an illegal, unpaid worker as a material factor undermining those objectives, particularly in relation to crime and public confidence.
Prediction: What this means for hospitality businesses and customers
For local hospitality businesses in Stockport and Greater Manchester, the revocation of Rossini Restaurant’s licence signals that immigration‑related breaches may now be treated as licensing‑level offences, not just as Home Office fines. This could encourage stricter vetting of staff documents and closer monitoring of subcontracted or informal labour arrangements, especially in venues where undercover or unregistered workers are occasionally used.
For customers and residents, the case may prompt renewed scrutiny of how licensing authorities balance public‑safety concerns with the economic impact on individual restaurants. If more venues lose licences over immigration‑related issues, some communities could see reduced evening‑time options for dining and drinking, which may affect local footfall and council‑area revenue.
Within the wider UK hospitality sector, the outcome in Stockport adds to a pattern in which licensing committees are increasingly willing to revoke licences where enforcement agencies present credible evidence of serious regulatory breaches, whether in food hygiene, immigration, or other areas. This could lead to a more cautious approach from operators when considering staffing models, particularly in high‑turnover or cash‑based venues where informal labour has historically been harder to track.
