Minutes:
The applicant attended the meeting in person and was supported by their agent. Arising from consideration of the report, evidence presented and in accordance with the Council’s procedure for hearings, it was moved by Councillor Rollason and seconded by Councillor Hayes, and
RESOLVED that the Hackney Carriage Drivers Licence be refused under Section 59 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, in order to promote public safety due to the conduct of the Driver as set out in the Report. The Sub-Committee felt there was reasonable cause to support its view that the driver is not currently a fit and proper person to hold such a Licence.
Reasons for the decision:
Members noted the information set out in the Report and heard from the Licensing Manager that this was a new application, not a review of any previous decision. The Applicant had previously held a Hackney Carriage Driver’s licence with Teignbridge District Council until February 2024, when this had been revoked following a review due to complaints about the driver’s behaviour. The Licensing Manager confirmed there are no offences on the DBS check and that all relevant information had been included within the report.
The Applicant’s agent spoke and referred to the reasons for the revocation of the Applicant’s previous licence. Whilst the Applicant should have been aware of the need to use the meter at the time and should have listened to the Licensing Officers, he is now aware of the need for this to be engaged, even for jobs with a quoted price.
The Applicant then spoke and explained that the customer who had videoed him during the altercation was known for not paying and being drunk. The customer had previously refused to pay three times and so the Applicant had asked for the money upfront, this was not given and so the customer was refused. The customer then paid and when being driven by the Applicant was physically abusive, the Applicant did not know he was being videoed. The Applicant admitted he had made a mistake and got angry because of this abuse but this would not happen again if his licence was granted.
The Applicant’s agent then continued and noted that whilst not a consideration to be taken into account, losing the licence had had a large impact on his finances and family. The Applicant has taken time since the licence revocation to consider the issues raised, had reflected on his attitude and is aware that the Licensing Authority should be listened to if unsure of the rules. The Applicant had been a taxi driver for 5 years and no longer works for the company. They have their own business and will also avoid working nights if the licence is granted in order to avoid confrontation.
In response to questions by the Sub-Committee as to what had changed since the revocation of the licence as it appeared there had been more than one conversation about the Licensing Authority’s concerns, the Applicant explained that they did not think the rules had been explained properly by the Licensing Authority they had received nothing in writing following meetings about the concerns raised and had thought that these would be raised direct with the previous employer.
The Applicant stated they had received no formal warnings and the first they had known about the concerns was when they were told the previous licence would be reviewed at a Sub-Committee. When asked by the Sub-Committee whether they understood their rights and responsibilities as set out in law and the Council’s Taxi and Private Hire Policy the Applicant’s agent confirmed that a CCTV system had been fitted to the Applicant’s vehicle and they had also had several discussions with the Applicant about their responsibilities and what is expected of a person in a position such as this.
The Committee thanked the driver for appearing before them and for answering their questions. However, all factors combined meant that the Sub-Committee did not consider that the driver was a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
The Sub-Committee were concerned that the Applicant had previously been driving for some years but had not appeared to realise the responsibilities of a taxi driver and was still relying on their agent to explain these. The Sub-Committee considered that driver behaviour is paramount and that it had not been an isolated incident but repeated incidents that had caused the previous licence to be revoked. The Sub-Committee noted that passage of time since revocation is a consideration but not the only one.
The Sub-Committee did not feel that the Applicant had shown any real evidence as to how they had changed since their licence was revoked other than being told by their agent how they should be behaving and the Sub-Committee did not feel they had received any proper assurances as to how incidents would be avoided in the future, especially as there had been a repeated pattern of behaviour.
The Sub-Committee did not feel comfortable granting a licence purely to give the Applicant a chance to show they had changed as this could potentially put members of the public at risk should an incident happen again. It appeared that the Applicant was relying purely on the passage of time to support their application and had not done any real work to improve on the behaviours that had led to the revocation of the previous licence.
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 driver, it was concluded after significant deliberation that they would not. The Sub-Committee noted its overriding duty to the public, and of the importance of protecting the public and of public safety and considered that, on balance, there was cause to show that the driver 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 to grant the driver’s application for a new Hackney Carriage Driver Licence at this time.