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 referrals in respect of

i)                    P.W.S

This referral was dealt with together with referral ii) J.S.C. as the two Licence Holders jointly held four Hackney Carriage vehicle licences.

Mr Ryan Ratcliffe, Licensing Officer was in attendance, he explained that a vehicle licensed jointly by P.W.S. and J.S.C. had had been stopped for a random spot check due to concerns as to its roadworthiness and then inspected at the Council’s Vehicle Maintenance Unit where it was found that the vehicle was not in a suitable state mechanically nor safe or comfortable for passengers. Of particular concern on this occasion were the vehicle’s tyres which were below the legal minimum. The driver’s role in this incident has been considered under Item 6- referral of A.A.

P.W.S. was in attendance and made representations to the Sub-Committee. He highlighted that both himself and J.S.C had held licences for many years. That the vehicle had been regularly maintained and inspected by a qualified mechanic who had identified an issue with the electrics but passed the vehicle as fit for use. He outlined his view that the tyre wear had been accelerated by a fault with the vehicle’s tracking- he also outlined that the drivers of the vehicle had not highlighted this issue of the tyres to himself or his fellow licence holder and that they could have easily had the tyre replaced at a number of local garages immediately.

The Sub-Committee considered carefully the evidence submitted by all parties. It concluded that while P.W.S. had taken steps to ensure that the vehicle was roadworthy. It was still clear that on this occasion- the vehicle was not in a mechanically suitable, safe or comfortable condition. The Sub-Committee concluded that while it would not be reasonable to revoke this licences on this occasion given lack of previous issues with the licence holders that these were serious faults with a licensed vehicle so that it was necessary and proportionate to issue a warning letter as to future conduct and impose conditions on the licence.

Resolved:

1.       That the referral be dealt by the issuing of a warning letter as to future conduct advising that if the licence holders were brought before the Sub-Committee again in the future, suspension or revocation could result.

2.      That the following conditions be added to the licence:

a)      The licence holder or their appointed suitably qualified taxi mechanic must inspect the vehicle on a weekly basis.

b)      The vehicle is to be serviced every 5000 miles

c)      Records of all servicing to be retained for 2 years

d)      Those records to be legible

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

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

ii)                  J.S.C.

This referral was dealt with together with referral i) P.W.S. as the two Licence Holders jointly held four Hackney Carriage vehicle licences.

Mr Ryan Ratcliffe, Licensing Officer was in attendance, he explained that a vehicle licensed jointly by P.W.S. and J.S.C. had had been stopped for a random spot check due to concerns as to its roadworthiness and then inspected at the Council’s Vehicle Maintenance Unit where it was found that the vehicle was not in a suitable state mechanically nor safe or comfortable for passengers. Of particular concern on this occasion were the vehicle’s tyres which were below the legal minimum. The driver’s role in this incident has been considered under Item 6- referral of A.A.

P.W.S. was in attendance and made representations to the Sub-Committee. He highlighted that both himself and J.S.C had held licences for many years. That the vehicle had been regularly maintained and inspected by a qualified mechanic who had identified an issue with the electrics but passed the vehicle as fit for use. He outlined his view that the tyre wear had been accelerated by a fault with the vehicle’s tracking- he also outlined that the drivers of the vehicle had not highlighted this issue of the tyres to himself or his fellow licence holder and that they could have easily had the tyre replaced at a number of local garages immediately.

The Sub-Committee considered carefully the evidence submitted by all parties. It concluded that while P.W.S. had taken steps to ensure that the vehicle was roadworthy. It was still clear that on this occasion- the vehicle was not in a mechanically suitable, safe or comfortable condition. The Sub-Committee concluded that while it would not be reasonable to revoke this licences on this occasion given lack of previous issues with the licence holders that these were serious faults with a licensed vehicle so that it was necessary and proportionate to issue a warning letter as to future conduct and impose conditions on the licence.

Resolved:

1. That the referral be dealt by the issuing of a warning letter as to future conduct advising that if the licence holders were brought before the Sub-Committee again in the future, suspension or revocation could result.

2.      That the following conditions be added to the licence:

a)      The licence holder or their appointed suitably qualified taxi mechanic must inspect the vehicle on a weekly basis.

b)      The vehicle is to be serviced every 5000 miles

c)      Records of all servicing to be retained for 2 years

d)      Those records to be legible

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

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

iii)                S.D.J.L.

Mr Ryan Ratcliffe, Licensing Officer, was in attendance, he explained that a vehicle licensed by S.D.J.L. had had been stopped for a random spot check due to concerns as to its roadworthiness and then inspected at the Council’s Vehicle Maintenance Unit where it was found that the vehicle was not in a suitable state mechanically nor safe or comfortable for passengers. The Licensing Service’s opinion remained that a large number of the faults would have been obvious  to a diligent driver  or the proprietor of the vehicle undertaking regular inspection. The driver’s role in this incident has been considered under Item 6- referral of M.S.F. Mr Ratcliffe highlighted to members that S.D.J.L. had previously appeared before the Sub-Committee in February 2013 and had conditions imposed on his licences including that The Licence Holder or a suitably qualified mechanic must inspect the vehicle on a weekly basis.

S.D.J.L. was in attendance and made representations to the Sub-Committee. He explained that the faults with the vehicle had not been brought to his attention as Licence Holder by any of the drivers of the vehicle. He stated that once these faults were brought to his attention- the vehicle had been replaced a newer vehicle. In response to questioning by the Sub-Committee, S.D.J.L. confirmed that he had been unclear as to the conditions on his licences but would adhere to any conditions imposed on his licences in the future.

The Sub-Committee considered carefully the evidence submitted by all parties. It noted that the responsibility for ensuring that a licensed vehicle was roadworthy, safe and comfortable remained that of the licence holder. The Sub-Committee was satisfied that had the Licence Holder completed checks as required by the conditions on his licences then these faults would have been identified and was therefore not satisfied that the conditions had been adhered to. It considered that by virtue of failure to ensure that licensed vehicles were in safe condition and by failure to adhere to the conditions previously imposed by the Sub-Committee S.D.J.L. had demonstrated that he was not a fit and proper person to hold such licences.

Resolved:

That the licences in respect of S.D.J.L. be revoked on the grounds that he is not a fit and proper person to hold such licences.

iv)                P.V.H.

Mr Ryan Ratcliffe, Licensing Officer, was in attendance, he explained that a vehicle operated by P.V.H.  had been stopped by enforcement officers due to concerns as to its roadworthiness and then inspected at the Council’s Vehicle Maintenance Unit where it was found that the vehicle was not in a suitable state mechanically nor safe or comfortable for passengers. Of particular concern on this occasion was one of the vehicle’s tyres which was below the legal minimum.

P.V.H. was in attendance accompanied by a work colleague. He highlighted that he had been for many years a licensed driver and held a vehicle licence. He further explained that for a number of months he had been driving a replacement vehicle as his vehicle had been involved in an accident where he had not been at fault. P.V.H. stated that he had raised the state of the tyre to the company supplying the vehicle on numerous occasions including when he had taken the vehicle to the company’s garage seeking a replacement as he had believed the tyre to be worn. He explained that on that occasion a mechanic had inspected the vehicle and told him that the tyre met the legal requirements. P.V.H. emphasised that he felt that the service provided by the replacement vehicle company had been inadequate and that he would be progressing a complaint against the firm.

The Sub-Committee considered carefully the evidence and concluded it was unclear as to whose responsibility the tyre issue rested with. The Sub-Committee agreed that P.V.H. had acted in a reasonable manner and that

Resolved:

That no action be taken in respect of the referral of P.V.H.