Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda item

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 licence holders who had been convicted of offences or otherwise given sufficient cause for concern.


Members discussed the referrals as appropriate.



(i)      PE – Existing Licence Holder


Mr Ratcliffe informed the Sub-Committee that at the time of a scheduled pit test by qualified mechanics at the Central Vehicle Maintenance Unit at Layton Depot, the licence holder had presented a vehicle with two tyres that displayed wear below the legal tread limit. Mr Ian Taylor, Public Protection Officer and Mr Kevin Ronson, Central Vehicle Maintenance Unit, were in attendance and attested to the poor state of the vehicles tyres.


PE was in attendance and suggested that in relation to the maintenance issues with his vehicle, it had only been based on the opinion of the mechanic who had identified the faults. He claimed to have operated as a driver and licence holder for many years without incident or having been before the Sub-Committee before for any reason. He added that he had had to deal with some difficult personal circumstances recently and this had likely impacted on his judgement in relation to the vehicles condition. PE indicated that he would expect routine use of tyre tread depth gauges by Council officers involved with the inspection of licensed vehicles.


The Sub-Committee considered the licence holder’s explanation for the poor state of the vehicle tyres as presented for inspection. Despite no previous concerns with the licence holder and consideration of his personal circumstances, Members agreed that to operate a vehicle with such obvious and serious defects was unacceptable. PE’s apparent lack of regular, diligent vehicle checks and scheduled maintenance further compounded the situation.



1.   To issue the licence holder with a Severe Warning Letter in relation to future conduct indicating that if he were brought before the Sub-Committee again, then suspension or revocation of the licence would be the likely outcome.

2.   To impose the following conditions on the Hackney Carriage 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 daily written vehicle handover check to be carried out by the outgoing driver and records to be legible and retained.



(ii)                G.K – Existing Licence Holder


The licence holder was in attendance with one of the licensed drivers who drove vehicles that she owned. Both made representations to the Sub-Committee.


In response to the authority’s case presented by Mr Ratcliffe which concerned the vehicle in question having been presented for a routine vehicle inspection whereupon a number of serious faults had been identified, GK suggested that the vehicle had since been replaced and that vehicle had passed a subsequent pit test. She added that in her opinion, she had been a responsible licence holder for over 20 years along with her husband. She expressed regret for the state of the vehicle as presented and suggested she had been severely let down by her mechanic on this occasion. GK claimed to lack any detailed mechanical knowledge and admitted she often relied on drivers and/or mechanics to ensure her vehicles were in good working order.


The Sub-Committee suggested that the licence holder should take a more active role in vehicle maintenance and accepted that it was likely she had been let down by her mechanic. Also, Members considered the long history of compliance with no previous appearances before them when reaching their decision.



To issue a Warning Letter to the licence holder indicating that if she was brought before the Sub-Committee again in the future for any reason, then suspension or revocation of the Licence would be the likely outcome.



Background papers: exempt.

Supporting documents: