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 four applicants and two existing drivers who had given sufficient cause for concern as to be referred to the Sub-Committee for consideration.

Members discussed the applications and referrals as follows:

(i)                 D.J.L (New Private Hire applicant)

Mr Ryan Ratcliffe, Licensing Officer, was in attendance and presented the Authority’s case. He reported that the applicant had two prior convictions for offences of a violent nature and had failed to declare one of those offences on his application.

The applicant expressed regret for his actions in relation to the offences and suggested that he had misread the relevant section of the application on the declaration of offences. He added that he had held employment in positions of responsibility and had dealt effectively with members of the public in those roles.

The Sub-Committee reasoned that the applicant had made some poor decisions in relation to the offences he had committed but acknowledged his level of remorse and desire to begin work as a licensed driver.

NOTE: Councillor Hobson requested that his decision to abstain from voting in relation to this particular case be 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 Driver Licence be granted on the grounds with the addition of a severe warning letter in relation to his future conduct.

(ii)               M.A.C (New Private Hire Vehicle Driver Applicant),

The Sub-Committee was advised that the applicant had indicated to the Licensing Service that he intended to attend the hearing and so agreed to hear the case in the his absence.

Mr Ratcliffe explained that MAC had previously had a submission rejected on the grounds that there had been reasonable suspicion he had cheated on the knowledge test as part of the application to be licensed. In addition, the applicant had failed his most recent attempt to pass the knowledge test.

The Sub-Committee considered the case and ultimately maintained their concern about the dishonest behaviour previously displayed by the applicant which was regarded as unsuitable conduct for a prospective licensed driver.

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

(iii)             M.S.L (New Private Hire Vehicle Driver Applicant),

The Sub-Committee was informed that the applicant had numerous prior convictions for a wide range of offences over a relatively long time period. Some of those offences were of a violent nature whilst others were driving related or had involved dishonesty. In addition, the applicant had failed to declare many of those offences on his application form.

MSL advised the Sub-Committee that in relation to his pattern of offending, he had dealt with some difficult personal circumstances earlier in his life. He added that he was sure he had declared all of his convictions on the application form and expressed regret that some had not been listed in error.

The Sub-Committee agreed that the applicant’s defence of his actions did not mitigate the seriousness and frequency of his offending behaviour and his conduct therefore fell short of the standards expected of a licensed driver.

Resolved:

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

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

(iv)              S.W (Existing Hackney Carriage Driver),

Mr Ratcliffe advised Members that the driver had contacted the Licensing Service to indicate that he would be unable to attend due to a personal commitment.

Resolved: In the absence of the driver, the Sub-Committee agreed to defer consideration of the case until the 6 February 2018 meeting.

(v)                V.S.B (Existing Hackney Carriage Driver)

Mr Ian Taylor, Public Protection Officer and Mr Shaun Louth, Team Leader, Layton Depot, advised the Sub-Committee that the driver’s vehicle had been taken off the road following a routine stop. Upon inspection at the Central Vehicle Maintenance Unit, the vehicle was found to have a number of serious defects which made it unsuitable for the carriage of fare paying passengers. According to Mr Taylor and Mr Louth, some of the faults were significant and should have been identified during the course of routine maintenance checks carried out by the driver.

The driver suggested that all relevant remedial work had now been carried out but added that she had been on holiday for an extended period prior to the vehicle being inspected during which time she had not used the taxi.

The Sub-Committee were not satisfied by the driver’s level of knowledge regarding maintenance and her apparent lack of regular checks on the vehicle’s condition.

Resolved: To issuea severe warning letter in relation to future conduct indicating that if the driver were brought before the Sub-Committee again, suspension or revocation of the licence would be the likely outcome.

Background papers: exempt