Minutes:
The Applicant attended the meeting in person, and he answered questions put to him by the Sub-Committee. The Applicant did not have 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 Peart and seconded by Councillor Horner, and
RESOLVED that the application for a new combined Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted under Section 51(1)(a) and Section 59(1)(a) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. The Sub-Committee felt that the conduct of the Applicant, supported its view that they are 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 caution and the reasons why the application for a licence was refused at officer level. The Licensing Officer stated that the caution was not disclosed on the application or during the driver interview.
The Applicant was given an opportunity to address the Sub-Committee and clarified that he had declared the caution to his agent who had omitted to include this. His agent had subsequently sent a letter through explaining that the Applicant had declared everything and that it was omitted from the application form in error. The Applicant further explained that he was interviewed by one officer and only asked one question which was how he should park in a taxi parking bay, but the caution itself was not raised although he was prepared to talk about it if questioned.
The Licensing Officer explained that at the time of interview they were not aware of a caution as the DBS certificate had not been received, and it had not been declared. The Applicant stated that at this point he was unaware that the caution had not been disclosed and felt that it was unreasonable to expect him to raise this again. The Applicant also noted that the agent’s letter did not appear to have been included as part of the report, although the omission was mentioned in the officer’s presentation at the start of the hearing.
The Licensing Officer explained to the Sub-Committee the process of submitting an application and felt that the Applicant should maybe have mentioned the caution during the interview. The Applicant then confirmed he had not been asked any questions at interview and that the interviewee had said she didn’t know what she was doing because it was new and that whilst he does not like to acknowledge the caution, he was prepared to speak about it if questioned. He had been upfront with his agent who had said it should not be an issue, but they would disclose it in any event.
The Sub-Committee asked the Licensing Officer the process of the interview as if an Applicant is not asked specific questions, then they wouldn’t necessarily expect to answer or bring the issue up. The Licensing Officer explained that public safety is paramount, and the driver’s interview is not a normal interview with set questions such as if applying for a job. It is to help establish if someone is ‘fit and proper’ to hold a licence taking into consideration that decisions on suitability are made on the balance of probability and applicants should not be given the benefit of the doubt. If the officer is only ‘50/50’ as to whether the applicant or licensee is ‘fit and proper’, they should not hold a licence. The Applicant then clarified that he does not remember being asked any questions and that it seems unfair for the onus to be on an applicant to bring up issues, questions or responses if not asked. The Licensing Officer responded and explained to the Sub-Committee that questions were asked at interview based on specific parts of the policy that were handed to the applicant to read.
The Applicant continued and stated that he accepts responsibility for the incident. And is taking steps with his doctor to help balance his mood to be able to deal with incidents in a more neurotypical way. The Applicant really feels that this is helping and doesn’t believe any issues have been raised about him since. The Applicant understands how it looks but he stressed that whilst he can overreact on issues that are really important to him, there is nothing else on his record and he understands the responsibilities he would have as a taxi driver.
The Licensing Officer added that the applicant was interviewed by 2 officers, and that the Applicant had initially stated he had been asked one question at interview and then stated he had not been asked any and further said he couldn’t remember.
The Committee thanked the Applicant for appearing before them and noted that he had taken responsibility for what had happened. The Sub-Committee felt that the Applicant’s attitude to the caution and the fact that he has been obtaining support from his doctor to prevent further incidents indicated that he was a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
When considering the Council’s Taxi and Private Hire Policy the Sub-Committee were mindful that each case must be decided on its own merits. The Sub-Committee considered that this appeared to have been an isolated incident, and no other concerns had been raised about the Applicant since. The Sub-Committee also noted that there had appeared to have been a massive mix-up in relation to the application form and declaration of the caution with no obvious intent to deceive. The Sub-Committee could also understand why the Applicant had not brought up the caution during the interview process.
The Sub-Committee noted its overriding duty to the public, and of the importance of public safety but considered that, on balance, there was no cause to show that the Applicant was a risk to the public and was not a fit and proper person to hold a 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 Applicant, it was concluded after significant deliberation that they would.
Taking the Council’s Licensing Policy into consideration, along with the Applicant’s submissions, the Sub-Committee considered given the circumstances of this case that it be reasonable to approve the Applicant’s request for a new combined Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Drivers Licence as set out in the report.