Minutes:
the Sub-Committee gave consideration to a report presented by the Licensing Officer (previously circulated) in which determination was sought in respect of an application for a new Hackney Carriage Vehicle Driver’s Licence.
The Applicant attended the meeting in person, and he answered questions put to him by the Sub-Committee. The Applicant was not accompanied by a representative.
Arising from consideration of the report, evidence presented and in accordance with the Council’s procedure for hearings, it was moved by Councillor Dawson and seconded by Councillor Rollason, and
RESOLVED that the application for a new Hackney Carriage Drivers Licence be refused under Section 59 (1)(a) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, so as to promote public safety. The Sub-Committee felt that the Applicant’s conduct as set out in the Report, supported its view that the Applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold such a Licence.
Reasons for the decision:
Members noted the information set out in the Report relating to the Applicant’s alleged conduct. Particularly that he had failed to disclose all of his convictions for speeding and for driving with no insurance and had failed to provide annual DVLA check codes contrary to the Council’s Licensing policy. The Sub-Committee noted that whilst some of 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 were also informed that the Applicant had not completed the required DBS check.
Members of the Sub-Committee questioned the Applicant as to why only one speeding offence from December 2020, had been declared on his application. The Applicant informed the committee that he wasn’t sure why this had happened.
The Sub-Committee also questioned why the driving ban had not been disclosed when the application form makes it clear that all offences, spent and unspent, must be declared. The Applicant answered that he had not thought he needed to disclose them as he had already served the ban. The Sub-Committee further questioned why the Licensing Team had not been informed of the driving ban at the time as required by the Council’s Licensing Policy. The Applicant answered that as he had told his employer and insurance provider, he did not think he needed to inform the Licensing Team.
The Sub-Committee then heard from the Applicant regarding the circumstances that led to the conviction for driving with no insurance. The Applicant explained that his father had paid his insurance for him but after he had passed away this had not been renewed and he had not realised the policy had lapsed until stopped by the police.
The Committee members thanked the Applicant for appearing before them and for answering their questions. However, all factors combined meant that the Sub-Committee did not consider that the Applicant was a fit and proper person.
The Sub-Committee was concerned that the Applicant had not disclosed the convictions on his application or when they first occurred and had not spoken to the Licensing Team or the agent acting for him to clarify any potential misunderstandings as to whether he should declare them. The Sub-Committee expressed some empathy for the Applicant in respect of the offence for driving with no insurance. However, it considered that this was not an excuse for not having the correct paperwork in place as that was an obligation that rested firmly with the Applicant. Such an abrogation of responsibility was considered supportive of the view that that the Applicant was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
The Sub-Committee was also concerned with what appeared to be a lack of understanding and recognition of the severity of the situation and that the Applicant had been driving taxis for some years and yet did not fully understand what was required of him. The Sub-Committee felt this lack of understanding and remorse fell below what would be reasonably expected of someone who is responsible for the safety of passengers.
Applying the test of whether Members of the Sub-Committee would be happy for a person they cared about or a vulnerable person to travel alone in a vehicle with the Applicant, it was concluded after significant deliberation that they would not. The Sub-Committee was also of the opinion that the granting of such a licence would be contrary to the establishment of a professional and respected Hackney Carriage and Private Hire trade. The Sub-Committee noted its overriding duty to the public, and of the importance of public safety and considered that, on balance, there was cause to show that the Applicant was not a fit and proper person to hold a Licence.
The Sub-Committee therefore considered given the circumstances of this case that it be reasonable and proportionate to refuse the application for a new Hackney Carriage Drivers Licence.