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 Driver’s Licence.
The Applicant attended the meeting in person, and 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 Hayes and seconded by Councillor Horner, 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 conduct of the Applicant as set out in the Report, supported its view that they are 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 previous conviction for criminal damage and revocation of licence by a neighbouring authority. The Sub-Committee noted that even if convictions are 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The Sub-Committee noted that the Applicant’s licence had been revoked by a neighbouring council due to this conviction and subsequently failing to disclose this within the 7 days required and additionally failing to disclose on reapplication to renew the taxi driver’s licence. The Sub-Committee also noted that the conviction and licence revocation were not disclosed on the initial application made to Teignbridge District Council.
The Sub-Committee heard from the Applicant regarding the circumstances that led to the conviction and accepted that this happened some time ago. The Sub-Committee expressed some empathy to the Applicant but considered it necessary to take the conviction into account. The Applicant informed the committee that he had misunderstood the application form and did not think he was required to disclose the conviction due to it being so long ago, and because his basic DBS check had come back clear he thought it was no longer relevant. He had not set out to intentionally mislead the Licensing Officers.
The Sub-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 conviction 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. The Sub-Committee were also concerned that the conviction was one for criminal damage which showed a level of aggression from the Applicant. Taxi drivers are held to a higher standard and may face challenging circumstances that need to be dealt with appropriately. There were concerns from the Sub-Committee about how the Applicant may react to difficult situations due to his history.
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 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.