Minutes:
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 Rollason and secondedbyCouncillor Horner, and
RESOLVEDthat the application for a new combined HackneyCarriage / Private HireDrivers Licencebe refusedunder Sections 51(1)(a) and 59(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 August 2025 and the DBS showed that the Applicant had convictions for unlicensed soliciting persons for hire car services, using a motor vehicle without third party insurance and making provisions for invitation/acceptance of/accept private hire booking without holding a licence. The offences were committed on 2 consecutive days and penalties included fines and disqualification from driving.
In September 2025, the Applicant was interviewed as is the practice for all new applicants and he maintained that he had been set up on each occasion by the police. 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 does not meet the standard required to be considered a ‘fit and proper person’ due to these convictions. The DBS was then passed around for Members to consider, and they had no further questions for the Licensing Officer.
The Sub-Committee then heard from the Applicant who explained that the two allegations had happened when he was in London and he does not understand why he would have been caught twice. The Applicant explained that he had only been dropping a friend off and had not taken any money, he was simply serving his community. The undercover police officer had misunderstood and due to this he had gone to court and paid the penalty. This was three years ago, and up until the conviction he was an experienced driver, and he has a family to support so needs the licence to be able to get a job.
In response to questioning from the Sub-Committee the Applicant clarified he did not have taxi insurance; however, he was insured normally and as he was not taxiing he feels this conviction is also incorrect.
Further questions were then asked by the Sub-Committee in relation to the refusal of a licence renewal by Transport for London in 2022. The Applicant explained that customers had complained and said he had been going the wrong way however he disputes this. He is unsure how many complaints in total he received when working for TFL. He further explained that TFL had not really explained why his licence renewal had been refused.
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 there were several concerning issues raised by the Applicant’s previous conduct as had been set out in the report. The Sub-Committee could not understand how he had been caught twice by the police and convicted in front of a judge if he had only been taking a friend home and offering someone a lift without asking for payment. It seemed unlikely that he was set up on both occasions and subsequently caught two days running. There also seemed to be no real explanation provided by the Applicant other than his claim he was set up and the Sub-Committee were concerned by what appeared to be a lack of accountability.
The Sub-Committee also considered it concerning that the Applicant had had a licence refused by TFL the year before the convictions due to complaints from customers. They again felt that this supported the view that the Applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence and did not feel any real explanation had been provided or accountability taken for these complaints.
The Sub-Committee empathised with the Applicant that he needed a job but noted this could not override the Licensing Authority’s duty to members of the public and their safety. Taxi drivers are held to a higher standard, and it was not considered that the Applicant had been free from these convictions for a significant period of time and they therefore remained relevant.
The Sub-Committee also had concerns about the Applicant’s honesty and integrity due to his claims he was set up by the police without any supporting evidence, along with the history of complaints from a previous licensing authority, again without any real explanation.
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 due to the factors as set out in the report and presented to them at the sub-committee.
TheSub-Committeetherefore consideredgiventhecircumstancesofthis casethatit bereasonableandproportionate to refusethe application for a new combinedHackneyCarriage / Private Hire Drivers Licence.