Agenda item

To consider licence holders who have been convicted of offences or who have otherwise given reasons for concern.

(This item contains personal information regarding 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 three licence holders who had been convicted of offences or who had otherwise given reasons for concern.

i)                    PWH

Mr Ryan Ratcliffe, Licencing Enforcement Officer, presented the case of PWH who had been licenced since August 2011. On 1 April 2022 the Licensing Service had been informed that PWH had received six penalty points for using a mobile phone while in control of a vehicle. The Licensing Service therefore had recommended that PWH received a strict warning.

PWH had declined to attend the meeting of the Sub-Committee and informed Mr Ratcliffe that he would not be renewing their licence once it expired.

The Sub-Committee considered the information provided and agreed that in this a strict warning be issued in line with the Licensing Services recommendation.

Resolved: That PWH be issued with a strict warning in relation to penalty points they had received.

ii)                  CVS

Mr Ryan Ratcliffe present the case of CVS to the Sub-Committee, informing them that they were an existing Private Hire Licence holder who in March 2022 had informed the Licensing Service that they had received three penalty points on their driving licence for speeding. Following a check with the DVLA Mr Ratcliffe reported that CVS had accumulated nine penalty points over the last two years. He added that CVS had therefore been referred to the Sub-Committee for consideration in line with section 14.5 of the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Convictions Policy. As a result of the accumulated penalty points Mr Ratcliffe informed the Sub-Committee that it was recommending a minimum of a suspension of CVS’s licence.

CVS appeared before the Sub-Committee to explain the circumstances under which they had received penalty point for speeding on his licence. They informed members that on 23 March 2022 they had been travelling on Devonshire Road when an Ambulance had approached them from behind with its siren and lights on. In order to swiftly reach a point to safely allow the ambulance past CVS stated they had sped up for a short period until they reach a point where they could pull their car over. During this brief period CVS had passed a speed camera which had recorded them exceeding the speed limit.

The Sub-Committee queried the circumstance of CVS’s 2021 conviction for speeding to which they stated that it had been incurred while they were driving the vehicle of an older lady whom they periodically worked to transport to the shops. They added that as it was not their vehicle and therefore could have been used by others, they could not be sure that they had been driving the vehicle when the speeding offence occurred. In response to a query regarding how they came to be charged with speeding in another person vehicle, CVS responded that a member of their client’s family had referred the fine to them. They also stated that they had not challenged the penalty points in these circumstance as they could not be sure who had been driving the vehicle.

In relation to the March 2022 fine CVS stated that they had been unaware that they could challenge the penalty points and that the circumstance under which it had occurred could have been used in this case. They also added that on no occasion had they been transporting a fare paying passenger when they had received penalty points.

The Sub-Committee considered the information that had been provided and the circumstance under which CVS had received their penalty points and agreed that in view of the multiple occasions that CVS had been fined for speeding that their licence be suspended for two weeks.

Resolved: That CVS’s Private Hire Licence be suspended for a period of two-weeks.

iii)                MCE

Mr Lee Petrak, Trading Standards and Licensing Manager, presented the case of MCE to the Sub-Committee. MCE had been referred to the Sub-Committee following an incident where a passenger had fallen from MCE’s vehicle while they were driving, and was under investigation by Lancashire Constabulary. Upon interviewing MCE regarding the incident they had provided a statement that was significantly different from the information provided by the Police based on the passenger statement.

Mr Petrak had therefore contacted the Police asking for additional information, including if a charging decision had been made in relation to the incident, if witness statements could be shared with the Licensing Service and if details of the passengers hospital visit and injuries could be shared. In response to this the police had informed Licensing that the case had been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to determine if MCE would be prosecuted, that the witness statements could not be shared but that they corroborated the statement made by the passenger. They had also replied that the details of passenger injuries and the circumstances of their hospital visit could not be shared until after the CPS charging decision had been made.

The Sub-Committee therefore sought advice from its Legal Advisor, Ms Sharon Davies, regarding how to proceed. Ms Davies informed members that nothing prevented the consideration of the case before a charging decision had been made, and that the Sub-Committee would have to determine how important the CPS charging decision was to its deliberations. Members also queried what legal liabilities could be incurred if the item was not deferred, for example if the Sub-Committee suspended MCE’s licence but they were not charged by the CPS. In response to this Ms Davies explained that the Sub-Committee should only consider the case if members were satisfied that a fair decision could be made on the known facts.

The Sub-Committee agreed that although the case could be considered at the meeting, in order that MCE receive a fair hearing that the case be deferred until the outcome of the CPS’s charging decision was known and additional information relating to the incident could be shared by the Police.

Resolved: That consideration of MCE’s Private Hire Licence be deferred until the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service is known.