Agenda item

(This item contains personal information regarding applicants and licence holders which is exempt from publication by virtue of Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972)

The Sub-Committee was informed of a number of applicants and existing Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle drivers who had given sufficient cause for concern as to be referred to the Sub-Committee for consideration.

Members discussed the applications and referral as follows:

(i)                 L.A.K (New Private Hire Driver applicant)

Mr Marshall presented the Authority’s case. He reported that the applicant had previously been refused a licence on the grounds of dishonest conduct on his part for non-declaration of an offence on the application to be licensed. It was also noted that the conviction had now expired.

LAK advised that he regretted the incident and had not been in any other trouble either before or since that date. He added that he had received a firm offer of work should the licence be granted and apologised for his ignorance in relation to what should have been declared on the application.

The Sub-Committee expressed concern about the lack of understanding displayed by the applicant when completing his previous application to be licensed. However, members were minded that given the time that had elapsed since the offence and LAK’s frank and honest account and general attitude, he had now demonstrated that he could be considered fit and proper to be granted a licence.

Resolved: That the application for a Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted.

(ii)               S.P.S (New Private Hire Driver applicant)

SPS was in attendance and made representations to the Sub-Committee. He explained that in response to the Authority’s case, he had made mistakes in relation to the number of serious offences outlined in the report. Whilst there were numerous convictions and sentences listed, he added that all time had been served and he had been conviction free for more than a decade.  With regard to the driving offences, the applicant had few answers and was unable to recall any detail about a conviction for dangerous driving listed in the report.

The Sub-Committee were satisfied that all punishments for criminal convictions had been served by the applicant and he not been convicted of further offences for an extended period of time. However, some of the driving convictions were recent and the applicant’s failure to adequately explain the circumstances of some offences led Members to be inclined to consider him an unsuitable person to be licensed.

Resolved: That the application for a Hackney Carriage Licence be refused on the grounds that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to be licensed.

(iii)             Z.K (New Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Driver applicant)

Mr Marshall explained that the applicant had a list of convictions which included two for serious drug related offences and others for deception and some which had involved violence.

ZK was in attendance with a friend, DH and both made representations to the Sub-Committee. The applicant expressed regret for the offences he had committed and advised that he had been conviction free for a period of almost 14 years and had served his time in relation to each offence, which included a significant amount of custodial time.

The Sub-Committee acknowledged that the applicant had served his sentence in relation to offences he had committed. However, such was the serious nature and number of offences, ultimately members did not see sufficient cause to deviate from the Hackney Carriage policy and were unconvinced of the applicant’s suitability to be licensed.

Resolved:That the application for a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle Drivers Licence be refused on the grounds that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to be licensed.

(iv)              Y.M (Existing Private Hire Driver)

Mr Marshall presented the Authority’s case and explained the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s single previous conviction and non-disclosure as part of three separate applications to be licensed.

Following The Sub-Committee’s expression of concern at the nature and recency of the offence that had involved violence against a family member, YM explained that he felt the incident happened at a difficult time in his life and felt it should not have been a Police matter.

Members were apprehensive at the prospect of granting a licence based on the applicant’s representations, which they felt did not go far enough to convince them to deviate from the Hackney Carriage Policy guidance on violent offences and those committed within a three year period prior to the application. Concerns that the applicant also did not declare the offence on three occasions were noted.

Resolved:

1.      To not prosecute for non-disclosure of offences on the application to be licensed.

2.      That the application for a Private Hire Vehicle Licence be refused on the grounds that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to be licensed.

(v)                P.U.C (Existing Hackney Carriage Driver)

The Sub-Committee was advised that the driver had three previous convictions, two of which were from over 30 years ago, though one was much more recent and had involved violence.

PUC explained that in relation to the most recent offence, he regretted the events and his part in them, though he explained that it had been a domestic incident in which he claimed he had merely chastised his own child following a disagreement. 

Despite concerns about the unfortunate incident, the Sub-Committee were in agreement that the driver did not present a risk to the public and had demonstrated remorse and provided a satisfactory explanation of the most recent offence.

Resolved: To renew the Hackney Carriage Licence with the addition of a warning letter in relation to future conduct indicating that if the driver were brought before the Sub-Committee again, suspension or revocation would be the likely outcome.

Background papers: exempt