Agenda and minutes

Members are asked to declare any interests in the items under consideration and in doing so state:

(1) the type of interest concerned; and

(2) the nature of the interest concerned

If any member requires advice on declarations of interests, they are advised to contact the Head of Democratic Governance in advance of the meeting.

There were no declarations of interests on this occasion.

To agree the minutes of the last meeting held on 19 January 2016 as a true and correct record.

Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting held on 19^thJanuary 2016 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

That under Section 100 (A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the whole item, including the decisions referred to at Agenda items 3 and 4 on the grounds that it would involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act

(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 three existing Hackney Carriage drivers, one existing Private Hire vehicle driver and one new Private Hire and Hackney Carriage licence applicant that had given sufficient cause for concern as to be referred to the Sub-Committee for consideration.

Members discussed the application and referrals as follows:

(i)                 GCC – New Private Hire and Hackney Carriage applicant

Mr Ratcliffe, Licensing Officer, was in attendance and presented the case on behalf of the Authority. Mr Andrews, Licensing Officer, was also in attendance as an observer.

GCC was in attendance and provided representations to the Sub-Committee.

Mr Ratcliffe described the driver’s previous conviction and added that he had failed to disclose the conviction during the application to be licensed.

The driver informed the Sub-Committee that he had not declared the conviction because he claimed that an earlier Disclosure and Barring Service check completed as part of a separate job application had been returned with no cautions or convictions listed.

Members expressed concern that the conviction had not been declared but acknowledged that a number of years had elapsed since the offence.

Resolved:

1.      To not prosecute the driver for non-disclosure of convictions during the application to be licensed.

2.      That the licence be granted with the addition of a warning letter in relation to future conduct indicating that in the event of a further incident, the licence would be revoked or suspended. 

(ii)               JM – Existing Hackney Carriage driver

Mr Ratcliffe presented the case on behalf of the Authority.

JM was in attendance and provided representations to the Sub-Committee.

Mr Ratcliffe advised that JM had driven a vehicle that had been identified as having a number of serious defects. The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) had subsequently issued a PG9 Prohibition notice to remove the vehicle from the road in the interests of public safety.

The driver explained that in his opinion, the defects had not been easily identifiable in regular checks he claimed to have carried out on the vehicle.

Members reasoned that some of the vehicle defects may only have been picked up by specialist equipment and may not have been obvious upon casual inspection by the driver. However, it was noted that the driver had previously appeared before the Sub-Committee under similar circumstances and therefore he should have been able to recognise at least some of the identified defects.

Resolved:

That the driver be issued with a warning letter in relation to future conduct indicating that in the event of a further incident, the licence would be revoked or suspended. 

(iii)             PUC – Existing Hackney Carriage driver

Mr Ratcliffe presented the case on behalf of the Authority.

PUC was in attendance and provided representations to the Sub-Committee.

Mr Ratcliffe advised that PUC had driven a vehicle that had been identified as having a number of serious defects. The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) subsequently issued a PG9 Prohibition notice to remove the vehicle from the road in the interests of public safety.

The driver  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

(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 three existing Hackney Carriage vehicle licence holders that had given sufficient cause for concern as to be referred to the Sub-Committee for consideration.

Members discussed referrals as follows:

(i)                 JN – Existing Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licence Holder

Mr Ratcliffe, Licensing Officer presented the case on behalf of the Authority.

JN was in attendance and provided representations to the Sub-Committee.

Mr Ratcliffe advised that JN had been the operator of a vehicle that had been identified as having a number of serious defects. The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) subsequently requested that service documentation for the vehicle be produced and issued a PG9 Prohibition notice to remove the vehicle from the road in the interests of public safety.

JN advised that he had been unaware of the vehicle’s defects and in his opinion, many of them would have been difficult to discover without specialist equipment. He added that the vehicle had been checked during regular interim services as per the conditions imposed on the licence and any faults identified had been immediately repaired.

The Sub-Committee expressed concern at the fact that regular servicing had failed to establish any of the mechanical defects listed in the report. In addition, the operator had taken a minimalist approach to maintenance and not taken any responsibility for the vehicles poor condition. However, Members noted that the operator had produced some service documentation to support his claims about regular maintenance.

Resolved:

1.      That the vehicle licence be suspended for a period of 14 days on the grounds that the operators conduct had fallen short of expected standards and to allow time for reflection and encourage future compliance.

2.      That the conditions on the licence be amended to include a requirement for additional regular testing of the vehicle’s brakes and emissions and for all future service documentation to include details of the individual vehicle’s registration and mileage.

(ii)               SJN – Existing Hackney Carriage vehicle licence holder

Mr Ratcliffe, Licensing Officer presented the case on behalf of the Authority.

SJN was in attendance and provided representations to the Sub-Committee.

Mr Ratcliffe advised that SJN had been the operator of a vehicle that had been identified as having a number of serious defects. The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) subsequently requested that service documentation for the vehicle be produced and issued a PG9 Prohibition notice to remove the vehicle from the road in the interests of public safety.

Mr Ratcliffe advised that in his opinion, the operator had failed in his responsibility to maintain a vehicle in his charge and allowed its condition to deteriorate. He added that some of the faults that VOSA technicians had identified presented a significant risk to public safety.

SJN explained that in his opinion, he had a comprehensive service schedule in place for the vehicle and produced a number of documents for Members to consider detailing works carried out on the vehicle. He added that many of the defects had required specialist equipment to identify.

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To note the date of the next meeting as 29^th March 2016.

Members noted that the date of the next meeting would be Tuesday 29^th March 2016.