Minutes:
TheSub-Committee gaveconsiderationtoa reportpresented by the Licensing Officer (previouslycirculated) in which determinationwas sought inrespectofan application for a new Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licence.
The Applicant attended the meetingin person and did not bring a representative and he answeredquestionsputto himby theSub-Committee.
Arisingfromconsiderationofthereport, evidence presentedandin accordancewith theCouncil’s procedurefor hearings,it was moved byCouncillor Hayes and secondedbyCouncillor Peart, and
RESOLVEDthat the application for a new HackneyCarriageDrivers Licencebe refusedunder Section 51 (1)(a) of theLocal Government (MiscellaneousProvisions) Act1976,so as to promote public safety. The Sub-Committee felt that the conductofthe Applicant as setoutin theReport,supported its viewthatthey are not afitandproper personto hold sucha Licence.
Reasonsfor thedecision:
Members noted the information set out in the report and read out by the Licensing Officer who highlighted that the Sub-Committee and the Licensing Authority have a duty towards the public in ensuring licensed drivers are fit and proper. This is considered under the balance of probabilities test and if there is any doubt as to the Applicant’s fitness to be a taxi driver then a licence should not be given.
The Licensing Officer continued and explained that a licence has been applied for in March 2025 and the driver was interviewed in July 2025 as is the practice for all new applicants. The interview contained general questions about the application, and it soon became apparent that the Applicant was struggling with the English language and only providing ‘yes’ and ‘no’ answers. The Applicant was also given a section of the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Taxi policy to read. When asked questions on this the Applicant was unable to answer, and only very broken and unclear responses were received. Eventually the Applicant understood and answered ‘no’ in response to whether he could continue to work with broken footwear.
The Licensing Officer continued and confirmed that the recommendation to the Sub-Committee is to refuse the licence request as it is felt the Applicant’s current language skills do not meet the standard required to be considered a ‘fit and proper person’ and it is considered that the inability to communicate properly poses a risk to public safety.
The Sub-Committee then heard from the Applicant, who explained the reasons he believed his language skills had not previously improved. When he was interviewed in March 2025, he did not expect the level or number of questions that he was asked. The Applicant expressed again that his language skills were bad at the time, but he feels he has improved since this interview as have his writing skills. He has a family he wants to support and feels he can do this by becoming a taxi driver. The Applicant stated he was happy to be given a shorter licence to prove he can do the job.
In response to further questions the Applicant passed around information that showed he has enrolled onto an English language course which is due to finish in July 2026. He then read out some wording from the Wolverhampton knowledge test practice sheet, although it was noted that he appeared to still have difficulties with fluency and the Sub-Committee had difficulty in understanding him.
The members further questioned if the Applicant intended to complete all levels of the English language course he has enrolled on or just the current level. The Applicant appeared to not fully understand the question and was unable to answer, even when the question was rephrased for him several times.
The Sub-Committee thanked the Applicant for appearing before them but felt that all factors combined meant that they did not consider he was a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
The Sub-Committee noted that although the Applicant has started an English language course, it is apparent he still appears to significantly struggle with English and comprehension at this time. There were concerns that he would be unable to understand the taxi policy and the requirements of being a taxi driver, one of which is the ability to be able to communicate effectively.
The Sub-Committee also felt that should he be granted a licence there was a serious concern he would be unable to communicate effectively with passengers which posed a risk to public safety and also to himself. 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 lack of English language skills.
The Sub-Committee noted that there was nothing stopping the Applicant from applying for a licence again in the future once his English had improved and commended him for enrolling on the course to improve his skills.
Applyingthe testofwhether Members of the Sub-Committeewouldbehappyfora persontheycaredabout or avulnerablepersonto travel alonein avehiclewiththe Applicant, it wasconcluded after significant deliberation thatthey would not. TheSub-Committee notedits overridingdutyto thepublic,and oftheimportanceof public safetyandconsideredthat,onbalance,there was causeto showthat the Applicant was not a fitand proper persontoholda Licence at this time.
TheSub-Committeetherefore consideredgiventhecircumstancesofthis casethatit bereasonableandproportionate to refusethe application for a newHackneyCarriage Drivers Licence.