Agenda item

(This item contains personal information regarding 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 Licence Holders who had given sufficient cause for concern as to be referred for consideration.

Members discussed the referrals as appropriate.

(i)      A.O. (Existing Licence holder)

Mr Ratcliffe presented the case on behalf of the authority. The vehicle belonging to AO had failed a routine pit test and numerous serious mechanical defects had been reported by technicians at the Central Vehicle Maintenance Unit at Layton Depot. Of the 18 faults identified, nine were judged to be MOT failures. Whilst the vehicle’s age meant that it fell just outside the Exceptional Quality Policy, it was still taken off the road immediately.

The Licence Holder was in attendance and made representations to the Sub-Committee. He advised that he had since replaced the vehicle and suggested that at the time of the pit-test, he was surprised to find the faults discovered as he claimed to have taken the vehicle to his mechanic shortly before the test date and they had failed to observe any of the faults. He suggested some of the faults, particularly those on the underside of the vehicle would have been impossible to spot without a ramp. AO presented a number of receipts that he claimed proved that preparatory work had been undertaken on the vehicle prior to testing.

The Sub-Committee expressed serious concerns about the state of the vehicle as presented for a pit-test. They agreed that higher standards were demanded from the Licence Holder and his failure to accept much of the responsibility for the condition of the vehicle made the situation worse. In addition, some of the receipts presented appeared to lack authenticity.

Ultimately, members were minded to take serious action against the Licence Holder who had failed to perform adequate maintenance on his vehicle and appeared to lack basic mechanical knowledge or be able to operate a simple maintenance schedule.

Resolved:

1.To suspend the Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licence and Hackney Carriage vehicle Driver’s Licence for a period of two months to encourage future compliance and given the seriousness of the faults identified with the vehicle.

2.To Impose the following conditions on the Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licence:

·         All inspections must be recorded in writing and this written record must include a list of action taken as a result of the inspection.

·         The licence holder is to implement a vehicle safety inspection regime to be undertaken at a minimum of every two months by a qualified motor engineer. Such records to be kept for a period of 2 years.

·         Records of all servicing to be retained for 2 years, those servicing records to contain the date, vehicle registration number & mileage of the vehicle

·         All service/inspection records must be legible

·         All records to be produced to enforcement or police officers within 24 hours of the demand being made.

·         The licence holder must implement a procedure to ensure that drivers do a visual inspection of the licensed vehicle each time that they take charge of that vehicle and report any faults with it to the licence holder.

(ii)    P.H.S. (Existing Licence holder)

The Licence Holder was in attendance and made representations to the Sub-Committee. In response to the authority’s case concerning serious defects found during a routine pit inspection of the Licence Holder’s vehicle, PHS claimed he was in hospital at the time of the pit test and therefore did not personally present the vehicle for testing. In addition, he produced documentation related to MOT tests taken subsequently but soon after the pit inspection where the vehicle appeared to pass. However, Members questioned whether the tests might have been performed on the vehicle after remedial works had already been carried out. The Licence Holder claimed that this had not been the case.

It was impressed upon PHS that the pit test was more stringent than a standard MOT test and therefore not comparable, so that faults that would not result in an MOT failure could constitute a pit-test failure.

The Sub-Committee reasoned that the vehicle operated by the Licence Holder was presented in a condition that fell well below the standards it was subject to under the Exceptional Quality Policy. PHS seemed unwilling to accept the failings and lacked remorse. Furthermore, no regular maintenance schedule between the Licence holder and driver was in place.

Resolved:

1.To suspend the Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licence and Hackney Carriage vehicle Driver’s Licence for a period of two months to encourage future compliance and given the seriousness of the faults identified with the vehicle.

2.To impose the following conditions on the Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licence:

·         All inspections must be recorded in writing and this written record must include a list of action taken as a result of the inspection.

·         The licence holder is to implement a vehicle safety inspection regime to be undertaken at a minimum of every two months by a qualified motor engineer. Such records to be kept for a period of 2 years.

·         Records of all servicing to be retained for 2 years, those servicing records to contain the date, vehicle registration number & mileage of the vehicle

·         All service/inspection records must be legible

·         All records to be produced to enforcement or police officers within 24 hours of the demand being made.

·         The licence holder must implement a procedure to ensure that drivers do a visual inspection of the licensed vehicle each time that they take charge of that vehicle and report any faults with it to the licence holder.

(iii)  S.F. (Existing Licence holder)

Mr Ratcliffe outlined the authority’s case. During a routine vehicle stop performed by the Licensing Service and the Central Vehicle Maintenance Unit, the Licence Holder’s vehicle was found to have numerous faults, some of which should have been obvious upon casual inspection.

The Licence holder was in attendance and suggested that some of the faults were not present when he got in the vehicle earlier that day. SF produced various receipts to evidence a regular maintenance schedule for the vehicle and added that he often had it checked at various mileage intervals.

The Sub-Committee were concerned at the Licence Holder’s apparent lack of mechanical knowledge and some of the basic faults that had been discovered on the vehicle.

Resolved:

That the following conditions be imposed on the Private Hire Vehicle Licence:

1. 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.

2. The vehicle is to be serviced every 5000 miles

3. Records of all servicing to be retained for 2 years

4. Those records to be legible

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

Background papers: exempt