Issue - meetings

To consider a licence holder who has been convicted of offences or who has otherwise given reasons for concern.

(This item contains personal information regarding a licence holder which is exempt from publication by virtue of Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972)

The Public Protection Sub-Committee considered a Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licence holder who had been convicted of an offence or otherwise given reason for concern.

(i)                  MN

Mr Ryan Ratcliffe presented the case to the Sub-Committee. He informed Members that MN was an existing Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licence holder, who had held their licence since 1996. MN had appeared before the Sub-Committee on four separate occasion between 1999 and 2013 and had received four warning letters, three of which had been severe. In July 2020 MN had contacted the Licensing Service to inform them that they had been convicted of a Racially Aggravated Public Order Section 5 Crime and Disorder Offence, following at incident at Blackpool Football Club. Mr Ratcliffe informed the Sub-Committee that the offence had been the result of an altercation with stewards at the football stadium during which MN had racially abused one of the stewards. As a result of this the Licensing Service recommended that, as a minimum, MN’s Licence be suspended.

MN then outlined to the Sub-Committee the circumstance of their conviction. They explained that they had been stopped and grabbed by stewards while attempting to cross a barrier to see a relative, who was in a different part of the stadium. They further explained that they had drunk too much alcohol prior to the incident resulting in them acting out of character, noting that they had never before been convicted of a racially aggravated offence. MN also highlighted that he had pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity and expressed their apologies for the incident. They also stated that they needed their Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licence in order to support their family.

Mr Ratcliffe asked MN how they could guarantee that similar incidents would not happen again in the future considering they had received four previous warning for convictions they had received. MN responded that no violence had occurred during the incident and they promised they would not repeat the behaviour. Mr Ratcliffe further asked if MN considered themselves to have an alcohol problem due their previous offences also being alcohol related. In response MN stated that they had previously had problems with alcohol prior to the other offences but had addressed them.

The Sub-Committee asked MN if they considered they had anger management issues and if so had they sought any help. MN replied that they did not consider themselves to have any anger management issues.

The Sub-Committee considered the information submitted by all parties and resolved that in light of MN’s previous warning and the serious racial nature of the offence committed that their licence should be revoked with immediate effect.

Resolved: That MN’s Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licence be revoked with immediate effect.

To consider a licence holder who has been convicted of offences or who has otherwise given reasons for concern.

(This item contains personal information regarding a licence holder which is exempt from publication by virtue of Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972)

The Public Protection Sub-Committee considered a Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licence holder who had been convicted of an offence or otherwise given reason for concern.

(i)                  KA

Mr Ryan Ratcliffe presented the case to the Sub-Committee. He informed Members that the KA was an existing Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licence holder, who had held their licence since June 2013. As part of the criteria for KA to maintain their Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licence the Licensing Service conduct a DVLA check at least once every 12 months. The result highlighted a conviction of using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks from 18 March 2020, for which he had received 6 penalty points. Mr Ratcliffe informed Members that KA was required by the conditions on their Licence to inform Licensing Service of any conviction as part of their Licence criteria and had not done on this occasion.

Mr Ratcliffe also informed the Sub-Committee that KA had previously been issued with a warning letter due to poor vehicle maintenance in April 2019.

KA outlined their reasoning for not informing the Licensing Service of their conviction. They stated that they had been stopped while using a friend’s car, which they had been incorrectly informed was fully insured. They described this as a genuine error and they had not been aware that they had to inform the Licensing Service due to the incident occurring while using a third party’s car not a licensed vehicle.

The Sub-Committee asked why KA had been using a friend’s car at the time of the incident. KA explained that at the time their own car had been in a garage for repair.

The Sub-Committee considered the information submitted by all parties and resolved that KA should have been aware of the responsibility to notify convictions as it was a condition of their licence, noting their previous receipt of a warning letter for poor vehicle maintenance. It was therefore agreed that he be issued with a severe warning letter in respect of the incident.

Resolved: That KA be issued with a severe warning letter in respect of their failure to disclose penalty points incurred to the Licensing Service.