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 considered whether three licence holders were fit and proper persons to hold Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licences, in respect of the following cases:

(i)                 G.M (Existing licence holder)

The licence holder was in attendance and made representations to the Sub-Committee. He suggested that with regard to the serious mechanical faults identified on his vehicle on separate occasions, a recurring issue had been to blame and had resulted in uneven tyre wear on his vehicle. He added that despite significant investment on his part and numerous mechanics working on the vehicle, the fault had still not been rectified fully. When asked to produce paperwork to substantiate his claims, the licence holder was unable to do so.

Mr Marshall suggested that the licence holder had been given ample opportunity to prepare the vehicle for inspection and had categorically failed in that regard. The Sub-Committee accepted that whilst there may have been a recurring fault, the operator should have been especially aware of this when presenting his vehicle and ultimately could have replaced the vehicle if it was known to be unreliable.

Resolved:

1.      To revoke the Private Hire Vehicle Licence on the grounds that the licence holder was not a fit and proper person to hold such a licence.

2.      To issue a severe warning letter on the Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licence 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.

(ii)               D.P.C (Existing licence holder)

Mr Marshall described the circumstances of the licence holder’s referral to the Sub-Committee. Members were informed of serious concerns about the condition of the vehicle as presented for a routine inspection which was found to have numerous severe mechanical faults.

The licence holder, who was in attendance, explained that he assumed the purpose of the inspection was to identify faults which he would then be expected to rectify. He apologised for the lack of understanding of his responsibilities with regard to vehicle maintenance.

The Sub-Committee were concerned at the licence holder’s lack of basic mechanical knowledge and of his responsibilities. However, they acknowledged the level of remorse displayed by DPC.

Resolved:

1.      To issue a severe warning letter on the Private Hire Driver’s Licence 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.

2.      To impose the following conditions on the Private Hire Vehicle Licence.

·         The vehicle must be inspected by a suitably qualified mechanic on fortnightly basis, the licence holder or their appointed representative must then inspect the vehicle on the alternate weeks.

·         The vehicle is to be serviced every 5000 miles

·         Records of all servicing to be retained for 2 years

·         Those records to be legible

·         Those records to be produced to Enforcement or Police officers within 24 hours of the demand being made

·         A record to be kept of all inspections carried out by yourself and those inspections to be carried out at least weekly.

NOTE: During consideration of the case of Private Hire driver and vehicle licence holder D.P.C, Councillor Humphreys became aware that he knew the driver in a personal capacity and therefore declared a prejudicial interest. He left the meeting for the remainder of the case and took no part in the discussion and subsequent vote.

The Sub-Committee discussed the fact that in recent months, a relatively high number of licensed Hackney Carriage and Private Hire vehicles had been found to have considerable mechanical defects. As such, Members requested that the Licensing Service conduct a wider review of licence conditions to establish if there were additional opportunities to remind licence holders and licensed drivers of their responsibilities in relation to vehicle maintenance.

(iii)             H.P.F (Existing licence holder)

The licence holder was in attendance and in relation to the serious defects found on his vehicle as outlined in the Authority’s case presented by Mr Marshall, HPF suggested that he had since replaced the vehicle in question with a more modern vehicle. He accepted his part in the poor condition of the vehicle as presented and apologised to the Sub-Committee for his actions.

Members expressed concern about the licence holder’s complacency and the sheer number of faults identified on his vehicle during the inspection. The Sub-Committee felt that the only way to ensure greater compliance in the future would be to impose conditions on the vehicle licence.

Resolved:

1.      1. To issue a severe warning letter on the Private Hire Driver’s Licence 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.

2.      To impose the following conditions on the Private Hire Vehicle Licence.

·         The vehicle must be inspected by a suitably qualified mechanic on fortnightly basis, the licence holder or their appointed representative must then inspect the vehicle on the alternate weeks.

·         The vehicle is to be serviced every 5000 miles

·         Records of all servicing to be retained for 2 years

·         Those records to be legible

·         Those records to be produced to Enforcement or Police officers within 24 hours of the demand being made

·         A record to be kept of all inspections carried out by yourself and those inspections to be carried out at least weekly.

(iv)              S.P (Existing licence holder)

Mr Marshall advised that the licence holder was unable to attend due to a personal commitment and requested that the Sub-Committee defer consideration of the case until the next meeting on 13 March 2018.

Resolved: To defer consideration of the case until the next meeting on 13 March 2018 to allow the licence holder an additional opportunity to attend.

(v)                S.S (Existing licence holder)

The licence holder was not in attendance and made no representations to the Sub-Committee.

Mr Marshall advised that the Licensing Service had no objections to the removal of licence conditions attached to the Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licence as they were applicable to the previous licence holder only.

The Sub-Committee agreed that the request was reasonable and that the licence holder had not been required to attend the meeting.

Resolved:

To remove all conditions previously applied to the Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licence on the grounds they did not apply to the new licence holder.

Background papers: exempt