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

Members discussed the applications and referrals as appropriate.

(i)                  S.L.W (New applicant)

Mr Ryan Ratcliffe, Licensing Officer, was in attendance and presented the case on behalf of the authority. The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant had a number of historic convictions from over 20 years ago, some for offences involving dishonesty.

SLW was in attendance and made representations to the Sub-Committee. He explained that in relation to the offences he had previously committed, that they occurred during a difficult period in his life and he had since made a number of positive changes and wished to put that period behind him.

Members considered the applicants account and reasoned that despite his frank admission, the fact remained that the offences and the failure to disclose them during the application process meant that deviating from the policy was not desirable.

Resolved:

1. To not prosecute the applicant for non-disclosure of criminal convictions on the application to be licensed.

2. To refuse the application for a Private Hire Vehicle Driver’s Licence on the grounds that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to be licensed.

(ii)                S.P.C (New applicant)

The Sub-Committee was informed by Mr Ratcliffe that the applicant had a recent conviction for dangerous driving and had only had his licence returned to him in July 2017.

SPC was in attendance and explained the circumstances surrounding the conviction, namely driving through a level crossing whilst warning lights were in effect. He expressed regret for his actions and claimed he was on his way to help a relative at the time.

The Sub-Committee considered the explanation of events and the fact that SPC had been forthcoming in declaring the nature of the offence.  However, Members were unsatisfied given the risk the applicant’s actions presented other road users and given the relatively short period that the applicant had his driver’s licence since it had been returned to him by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) saw no reason to deviate from the Policy.

Resolved: To refuse the application for a Private Hire Vehicle Driver’s Licence on the grounds that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to be licensed.

(iii)              K.A (Existing)

The Sub-Committee was informed that the licence holder had his vehicle checked by Licensing Enforcement officers as part of routine inspections. During the course of the inspection, the vehicle operated by KA was found to have a number of serious mechanical defects.

KA explained to the Sub-Committee that he had not realised a tyre had been under the legal limit and that his side lights had required replacement bulbs. He added that he had not been issued a maintenance checklist by the vehicle owner despite the latter’s claims to the contrary.

Despite the driver’s apparent lack of mechanical knowledge and formal maintenance schedule with the vehicle owner and concerns about the nature of the relationship between them, the Sub-Committee were more concerned about the lack of responsibility taken by the vehicle owner and the poor level of communication between them. Members also considered that the driver had never previously given them cause for concern.

Resolved: To issue the Hackney Carriage Driver with a warning letter in relation to future conduct.

(iv)              J.M.J (Existing)

Mr Ratcliffe advised that JMJ had been stopped by Licensing Enforcement officers and his vehicle had been found to have some tyres with excessive wear and degradation. Concerns about the nature of routine checks that the licence holder was responsible for were therefore called into question.

JMJ was in attendance and claimed that the vehicle owner had taken the vehicle to his regular mechanic for work prior to the inspection and he believed that the tyres should have been replaced at that time. Though he claimed there had been a wheel alignment issue that may have led to increased tyre wear, JMJ admitted that he could have done more by way of routine maintenance checks.

The Sub-Committee expressed concerns that, given JMJ’s previously exemplary record as a licensed driver, he should have been able to recognise many of the faults identified during the course of routine checks and maintenance of the type expected to be carried out by all licensed drivers on their vehicles. Members were not convinced and suggested that communication between the driver and owner of the vehicle had been poor.

Resolved: To issue the Hackney Carriage Driver with a warning letter in relation to future conduct.

Background papers: exempt