Minutes:
The Applicant attended the meeting in person with his wife and he answered questions put to him by the Sub-Committee.
Arising from consideration of the report, evidence presented and in accordance with the Council’s procedure for hearings, it was moved by Councillor Peart and seconded by Councillor Horner; and
RESOLVED that the application for a new Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Drivers Licence be refused under Section 51 (1)(a) and 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 revocation of a taxi licence by a neighbouring authority in July 2024. The Sub-Committee noted that the Applicant’s licence had been revoked by a neighbouring council due to failing to report a collision and being dishonest as to the circumstances of this collision. The Sub-Committee noted that the licence revocation was disclosed on the initial application made to Teignbridge District Council.
The Sub-Committee heard from the Applicant regarding the circumstances that led to the collision and in response to questions he confirmed that he hadn’t reported the collision and had been dishonest as to the circumstances as it had never happened to him before, he was unsure what he should do and worried he would lose his licence which he needs to support his family. He has been driving taxis since 2016 and regrets what happened. The Applicant continued and stated he really regrets what happened but that at the time he was under a lot of stress in his personal life, and it had all become too much for him.
In response to further questions relating to speeding offences which were not declared to the previous authority, the Applicant explained that he thought the DVLA check carried out on all drivers by Local Authorities would confirm this and therefore he didn’t need to report it. The Licensing Officer then clarified to the Sub-Committee that they always check DVLA licences for new drivers and intermittently for current drivers. The Licensing Officer also explained that there will always be a specific time frame for reporting any incidents and for providing evidence a vehicle is safe to drive, although this may differ between Licensing Authorities.
The Applicant confirmed to the Sub-Committee that the vehicle had scratches and a small dent resulting from the collision. A garage was contacted straight away to fix these. The Applicant again stated his regret for what happened and acknowledged his mistake. He is asking for a chance to prove himself and show he is a responsible person who can safely carry passengers.
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 noted that whilst the licence revocation had been declared by the Applicant, the circumstances surrounding the collision and subsequent revocation were concerning. The Sub-Committee felt that there appeared to have been a series of bad decisions made by the driver who had been licensed for some years and that the behaviour fell well below that expected of a licensed driver. The Sub-Committee also noted the dishonesty surrounding the circumstances of collision which happened when a child was in the car, which only came to light once the previous Licensing Authority received a complaint.
There were further concerns that the Applicant had received convictions for exceeding the statutory speed limit on two occasions which were not disclosed to the previous Licensing Authority and that the CCTV footage of the collision showed the vehicle appeared to be driving too fast for the road conditions, further putting the public at risk.
Taxi drivers are held to a higher standard and may face challenging circumstances that need to be dealt with appropriately. There were further concerns from the Sub-Committee about how the Applicant may react to difficult situations due to his history of dishonesty when reporting incidents.
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 Combined Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Drivers Licence.