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 combined Hackney Carriage & Private Hire Vehicle 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 Peart, and
RESOLVED that the application for a new Hackney Carriage Vehicle Drivers Licence be refused under Section 59(1)(a)(i) and Section 51(1)(a)(i) 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 current licence endorsement MS90 - Failure to give information as to the identity of driver, which was received in July 2024. This was received following a speeding offence which occurred in May 2024. 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 were told that the Applicant had been upfront about this offence.
The Applicant explained to the Sub-Committee the circumstances that led to receiving this licence endorsement. He had lent his mother his car and she had been caught speeding. When the letter came through from the police asking for details of the driver the letter was handwritten and did not appear to be genuine. The Applicant thought it was a scam and did not want to provide his mother’s details due to this concern. The Applicant passed around copies of the letters he had received from the police which the Sub-Committee considered. The Applicant continued to explain that at around the same time his vehicle numberplate had been cloned, and he had received tickets from London, making him concerned the speeding offence was also a scam.
The Applicant continued and said he had emailed the police who provided him with different contact details to use to confirm if this was a scam, but he received no response to his email. Following this, once he finally became aware this wasn’t a scam, he then wrote to the police and courts to explain the confusion and accept the charge. The Applicant explained he had misunderstood the UK system and once aware he complied fully with what was requested. In response to questions the Applicant confirmed that his mother was fully insured and able to drive the car legally.
The Sub-Committee 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 noted that the Applicant appeared remorseful and other than the offence in question the Applicant’s record appeared clear. They also noted that he had disclosed the offence on his application. However, the Sub-Committee were not completely satisfied by the reasons given by the Applicant for believing that the letters received from the police were a scam and therefore not providing details as legally required.
The Sub-Committee had seen the letters received from the police which were on headed paper and the information relating to the offence was the only handwritten part of these. The Sub-Committee felt these looked official and did not feel that they could have been mistaken for a scam. The Sub-Committee also felt that if the Applicant was truly concerned about a scam, he should have followed this up more thoroughly with the Police and chased if a response had not been received from any enquiries he made.
The Sub-Committee felt that by not disclosing who had been driving the car this indicated dishonesty over who had actually been driving and perhaps this had in fact been intentional. There was concern due to this that the Applicant was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence at this time.
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 Applicant’s application for a new Combined Hackney Carriage & Private Hire Drivers Licence.