Minutes:
On 9November2022,theSub-Committee gaveconsiderationtoa reportpresented by the Licensing Officer (previouslycirculated) in which determinationwas sought inrespectofan application for a new Hackney Carriage and PrivateHire Vehicle Driver’s Licence.
The Applicant attended the meetingin personand answeredquestions from theSub-Committee.
Arisingfromconsiderationofthereport, evidence presentedandin accordancewith theCouncil’s procedurefor hearings,it was moved byCouncillorGoodman-Bradbury and secondedbyCouncillor Evans, and
RESOLVEDunanimously that the application for a new HackneyCarriageand PrivateHire Vehicle Drivers Licencebe refusedunder Section51(1)(a) and Section 59(1)(a) of theLocal Government (MiscellaneousProvisions) Act1976,in order to promote public safetydue tothe conductofthe Applicant as setoutin theReport, astheSub-Committeefeltthere was reasonablecausetosupportits viewthatthe Applicant was not afitandproper personto hold sucha Licence.
Reasonsfor thedecision:
Members noted the information set out in the Report relating to the Applicant’s previous convictions. The Sub-Committee noted the severity and number of the offences and heard that whilst the convictions were 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 heard from the Licensing Officer that the applicant had not provided further information about the convictions before the committee when requested.
The Committee thanked the Applicant for appearing before them and noted that they appeared remorseful and wanted to be given an opportunity to prove themselves and to be able to provide for their family (although this was not a material consideration).
However, all factors combined meant that the Sub-Committee did not consider that the Applicant was a fit and proper person. The Sub-Committee were concerned with the number of convictions and also the severity as licensed drivers are in a responsible position and are required to transport the general public in their vehicle including children, the vulnerable and the elderly and often alone.
The Sub-Committee were also concerned that the Applicant had not disclosed the convictions on the application and had not spoken to the Licensing Team to clarify any potential misunderstandings as to whether they should list these. Whilst they accepted the Applicant’s explanation, the Sub-Committee felt it was also a concern that there were inconsistencies with the Applicant’s name and date of birth which appeared on the DBS check.
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 protecting thepublicandpublic safetyandconsideredthat,onbalance,there was causeto showthatthe Applicant was not afitand proper persontoholda Licence.
TheSub-Committeetherefore consideredgiventhecircumstancesofthis casethatit bereasonableandproportionate to refusethe application for a newHackneyCarriage and Private Hire Vehicle Drivers Licence.