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 two applicants and a referral for consent for photography for trade or business, 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)                 A.F.L (New applicant)

The applicant was not in attendance and had not been in contact with the Licensing Service to notify them of his intentions with regards his presence at the meeting.

The Sub-Committee agreed to hear the case in the applicant’s absence.

Mr Marshall reported that the Disclosure Certificate for AFL had returned clear but further enquires with Lancashire Constabulary had resulted in the discovery of concerns related to the individual on the European Database. The Sub-Committee were informed that AFL’s record had been raised on two occasions and no further information had so far been received. Given the lack of clear information about the applicant’s record in relation to judicial proceedings abroad, Members were concerned about the implications of granting a licence without precise knowledge of the applicant’s history.

Resolved: That the application for Consent for Photography By Way of Trade or Business be refused on the grounds that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to be licensed.

(ii)               B.H (New applicant)

The applicant was not in attendance and had not been in contact with the Licensing Service to notify them of his intentions with regards his presence at the meeting.

The Sub-Committee agreed to hear the case in the applicant’s absence.

Mr Marshall reported that the applicant had on several occasion behaved in an unprofessional and at times aggressive and unlawful manner with the public. He had also failed to heed advice from the Licensing Service.

Of particular concern was the reported aggression and conflict that BH had found himself in with members of the public, something that would be especially relevant in relation to the applicant’s proposed business activity which would likely involve working in close proximity to children who would be a witness to any dispute and/or conflicts that may arise. The Sub-Committee was advised that the latest report of the applicant using a fraudulent badge demonstrated his disrespect of the scheme of regulation.

Members discussed the application and expressed serious concerns regarding the applicant’s attitude, temperament and general conduct which they felt fell far short of the expected standards.

Resolved: That the application for Consent for Photography By Way of Trade or Business be refused on the grounds that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to be licensed.

(iii)             A.P.S (Existing Licence Holder)

The licence holder was not in attendance and had not been in contact with the Licensing Service to notify them of his intentions with regards his presence at the meeting.

The Sub-Committee agreed to hear the case in the licence holder’s absence.

Members were informed of a number of issues with the licence holder that included his claims that he had donated proceeds from his work to various charities which could not be substantiated or verified. In addition, concerns were noted regarding complaints made about the overall presentation of the business and the level of personal hygiene displayed by APS. In relation to concerns of a serious nature raised by members of the public, the licence holder had not been able to provide a reasonable explanation of his actions.

The Sub-Committee agreed that anyone licensed for this type of activity should have a heightened awareness regarding the overall protection of children and Members felt that the interaction with the licence holder to date demonstrated a lack of due care and attention and failure to act on any advice he had received from the Regulatory Authorities.

Resolved: That Consent for Photography By Way of Trade or Business be revoked on the grounds that the licence holder was not a fit and proper person to be licensed.

Background papers: exempt