Minutes:
The Sub-Committee gaveconsiderationtoa reportpresented by the Licensing Officer (previouslycirculated) in which determinationwas sought inrespectofan application for a new Hackney Carriage and PrivateHire Vehicle Driver’s Licence.
The Applicant attended the meetingin personand he answeredquestionsputto himby theSub-Committee. The Applicant was accompanied by his agent who advised him during the meeting.
Arisingfromconsiderationofthereport, evidence presentedandin accordancewith theCouncil’s procedurefor hearings,it was moved byCouncillorDawson and secondedbyCouncillor Hayes, and
RESOLVEDthatthe Applicant’s application for a new HackneyCarriageand PrivateHire Vehicle Drivers Licencebe refusedunder Section51(1)(a) and Section 59 (1)(a) of theLocal Government (MiscellaneousProvisions) Act1976,so as to promote public safety. The Sub-Committee felt that the conductofthe Applicant as setoutin theReport,supported its viewthatthe Applicant was not afitandproper personto hold sucha Licence.
Reasonsfor thedecision:
Members noted the information set out in the Report relating to the Applicant previous convictions. The Sub-Committee noted that whilst his convictions were spent, they are still considered relevant as the driving of taxis is a ‘Regulated Occupation’. As such questions may be asked as to the suitability of an individual to be granted a licence.
The Sub-Committee heard from the Applicant regarding the circumstances that led to the convictions and accepted that these were a significant time ago. The Sub-Committee expressed some empathy to the Applicant but considered it inappropriate to go behind the court’s decision.
The Sub-Committee noted that the convictions were not disclosed on either application made by the Applicant and asked why they had not been declared. The Applicant informed the committee that he had misunderstood the application form and did not think he was required to disclose the convictions as they had been spent.
The Committee thanked the Applicant for appearing before them and noted that he appeared remorseful. However, all factors combined meant that the committee did not consider that the Applicant was a fit and proper person.
The Sub-Committee were concerned that the Applicant had not disclosed the convictions on his application and had not spoken to the Licensing Team or the agent acting for him to clarify any potential misunderstandings as to whether he should list them.
Applyingthe testofwhether Members of the Sub-Committeewouldbehappyfora persontheycaredabout or avulnerablepersonto travel alonein avehiclewiththe Applicant, it wasconcluded after significant deliberation thatthey would not. TheSub-Committee notedits overridingdutyto thepublic,and oftheimportanceof public safetyandconsideredthat,onbalance,there was causeto showthatthe Applicant was not afitand proper persontoholda Licence.
TheSub-Committeetherefore consideredgiventhecircumstancesofthis casethatit bereasonableandproportionate to refusethe Applicant’s application for a newHackneyCarriage and Private Hire Vehicle Drivers Licence.