A company has been prosecuted by Enfield Council for selling cosmetics without the proper health and safety documentation.
TJ Beauty Products and owner Tafari Palmer, 38 , of Nile Drive, Edmonton, were ordered to pay a total of £3,625 after pleading guilty to two counts of infringing the Cosmetic Products (Enforcement) Regulations 2013 at Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court on 13 November.
Enfield Council’s Cabinet Member for Environment, Cllr Guney Dogan, said: “Businesses have an obligation to sell products that they know are safe and have the proper documentation”.
“The items in question did not comply with regulations which were put in place to protect the general public from products that could cause them harm and it is disappointing when businesses do not comply with safeguards that are designed to protect the health of consumers.
“I am grateful for the quick and efficient actions of Enfield Council staff and I hope the sanction handed out by the court will act as an appropriate deterrent to operating unlawfully and be an incentive for businesses to ensure the products they are selling are properly labelled and do exactly ‘what they say on the label’.”
The court heard that Thurrock Trading Standards notified Enfield Council in November 2017 that they had stopped consignments of a number of cosmetic products bound for TJ Beauty Products Ltd.
Later that month Thurrock Trading Standards requested the documentation for the shipment and found the technical documents were incomplete, leading to them refusing entry to the cargo.
Enfield Council Trading Standards Officers purchased a package of the product in January 2018 and on examining the packaging found it did not contain a number of legally required details, including a toxicology report or a list of ingredients.
Palmer was called in for interview and consequently charged with a number of offences.
TJ Beauty Products was fined £750 for each offence and ordered to pay a £75 Victim Surcharge, Palmer was fined £500 for each offence and ordered to pay a £50 Victim Surcharge. Collectively the company and the owner were ordered to pay £1,000 costs.