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 considered referrals in respect of the following cases:

i)   P.M.H

The Sub-Committee noted that the case was linked to driver ALD contained in agenda item 6. Mr Ratcliffe advised Members that during a routine inspection carried out by Licensing Enforcement Officers, PMH’s vehicle was found to have a number of serious mechanical defects, four of which would constitute MOT failures.

The licence holder was in attendance and expressed regret that his vehicle was in such poor condition and added that he thought despite the nature of the faults, in his opinion, the vehicle was not unsafe. He also advised that he had put a maintenance schedule in place with each of his drivers complete with a checklist to be completed by each driver at the start of their shifts. A letter from the owner of a local taxi firm was produced by way of character reference in support of PMH.

The Sub-Committee considered the case and accepted that despite the faults identified on the licence holder’s vehicle, he had already made efforts to improve future conduct and seemed remorseful.

Resolved:

1.To issue the licence holder with a warning letter, indicating if he were brought before the Sub-Committee again for similar maintenance concerns, then suspension or revocation of the Vehicle Licence would be the likely outcome.

2.To impose the following conditions on the Vehicle Licence, effective immediately:

·         The licence holder or a suitably qualified mechanic must inspect the vehicle on a weekly basis.

·         The licence holder 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 two years.

·         Records of all servicing to be retained for two years, those servicing records to contain the date, vehicle registration number and 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)  J.J.S.

JJS was not in attendance but was instead represented by her brother, Mr Myers.

He explained that the poor maintenance identified during an inspection of the Licence Holder’s vehicle was unfortunate and he apologised on her behalf. However, he proceeded to describe mitigating factors that he asked the Sub-Committee to consider. A number of receipts, photographs and car parts were circulated to Members and Mr Myers claimed that the regular mechanic used of pre-testing of JJS’s vehicle had let them down by suggesting the vehicle was in a condition ready to be presented for a routine pit-test.

The Sub-Committee appreciated the detailed case put forward by Mr Myers on behalf of the Licence Holder. However, despite assurances of improvements to JJS’s future maintenance regime, ultimately the fact remained that the vehicle was not in a suitable state mechanically to carry fare paying passengers.

Resolved:

1.To issue the licence holder with a warning letter, indicating if she were brought before the Sub-Committee again for similar maintenance concerns, then suspension or revocation of the Vehicle Licence would be the likely outcome.

2.To impose the following conditions on all six of Vehicle Licences operated by the Licence Holder, effective immediately:

·         The licence holder or a suitably qualified mechanic must inspect the vehicle on a weekly basis.

·         The licence holder 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 two years.

·         Records of all servicing to be retained for two years, those servicing records to contain the date, vehicle registration number and 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)   R.J.E. and (iv) D.W.M.

The Sub-Committee considered the Licence Holder’s cases together as they operated the licence jointly at the time that the maintenance issues were identified with the vehicle in question.

Mr Ratcliffe reported that the vehicle had been found to have some serious mechanical defects, some of which were serious enough to constitute MOT failures. Also, DWM had a track record of 11 failed pit tests in a total of 12 over a four year period.

Both licence holders were in attendance and supported by Bill Lewtas, Blackpool Licensed Taxi Operator’s (BLTOA). Mr Lewtas explained that both were sorry for the state of the vehicle as it was during the inspection by Council qualified mechanics. He added that the regular mechanic that prepared the vehicle for testing had simnply not identified any of the faults despite receipts proving that a full inspection had indeed been undertaken in the days before the Council inspection. RJE claimed that in his opinion, many of the faults, particularly those on the underside of the vehicle would not have been readily identifiable during the course of a simple walk-around of the vehicle as performed by himself.

As neither licence holder had previously been before the Sub-Committee for any reason and had provided satisfactory accounts and supporting evidence of their claims, the Sub-Committee reasoned that despite earlier concerns, the vehicle in question had now been replaced and a stricter maintenance regime put in place by both licence holders, containing conditions similar to those recommended by the Licensing Service.

Resolved:

1.To issue the Licence Holder RJE with a warning letter, indicating if he were brought before the Sub-Committee again for similar maintenance concerns, then then more serious action would result.

2.To issue the Licence Holder DWM with a warning letter, indicating if he were brought before the Sub-Committee again for similar maintenance concerns, then more serious action would result.

Background papers: exempt