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 an application from an existing Horse-Drawn Hackney Carriage driver that had given sufficient cause for concern as to be referred to the Sub-Committee for consideration.

Members discussed the referral as follows:

                    i.            DP – Existing Horse-Drawn Hackney Carriage Driver

Mr Marshall, Licensing Health and Safety Enforcement Manager, and Ms Vicki Cartmell, Higher Court Advocate, who were in attendance during consideration of the case presented it on behalf of the Authority. Mr Ratcliffe, Licensing Officer, was also in attendance.

DP was in attendance at the meeting with legal representation from Ms Cath Johnson and Mr John Blott, Solicitors, Fylde Law.

Mr Blott reported that a separate case that involved DP had been brought at the Criminal Court and requested that the hearing be adjourned pending the outcome of those criminal proceedings.

Ms Cartmell reminded the Sub-Committee that the case had previously been deferred and asked for the case not to be adjourned.

The Sub-Committee considered that the case had already been deferred previously and was separate from the criminal proceedings.

Resolved: The Sub-Committee agreed not to adjourn the case pending the outcome of the separate Criminal Court case.

Councillor Cox arrived at the meeting at this point and was present for all subsequent discussions.

Mr Marshall presented the Authority’s case and outlined the details of an incident that had resulted in the driver being brought before the Sub-Committee.

Mr Blott questioned the wording of Council bye-law 13 and suggested that it was perhaps misleading and that the driver had misinterpreted the guidance outlined within the text. He further advocated that the approach adopted by enforcement officers of the Council in relation to stopping drivers deemed to be carrying an excessive number of passengers seemed to be inconsistent, which had further confused the driver. DP apologised if he had been in the wrong and advised the Sub-Committee that he had an exemplary record as a licensed driver with many years of experience.

In relation to the drivers conduct, the Sub-Committee reasoned that the driver had breached the relevant bye-law but noted he had accepted full responsibility for the incident. This, combined with his incident free previous track record as a licensed driver were balanced with the Sub-Committee’s concerns about the safety of passengers travelling in Horse-Drawn Hackney Carriages.

The Sub-Committee agreed that some sort of clarification needed to be provided by the Licensing Department to Horse Drawn Hackney Carriage drivers that explained that six persons, a driver and where necessary, a groomsman would be the maximum number of occupants permitted for carriage.

Resolved:

1.      That no further action be taken against the driver in relation to the incident.

2.      Guidance to be issued to all Horse-Drawn Hackney Carriage drivers in the Local Authority area in the form of a letter that would detail that a maximum of six persons plus a driver and if necessary, a groomsman could be carried in a Horse Drawn Hackney Carriage.