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 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 advised that he had carried out regular visual inspections of the vehicle and that in his opinion, it had not been in an unroadworthy condition. He added that whenever he discovered issues with vehicles in his charge, he reported them immediately to the vehicle licence holder.

The Sub-Committee discussed the case and expressed concern at the apparent lack of responsibility demonstrated by the driver in relation to the vehicle’s condition and a lack of basic mechanical knowledge on his part. However, it was also noted that many of the defects had been difficult to see upon a casual inspection and the driver had given no previous cause for concern.

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.

(iv)              MAJ – Existing Hackney Carriage driver

Mr Ratcliffe presented the case on behalf of the Authority.

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

Mr Ratcliffe advised that MAJ 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.

MAJ admitted that some of the defects identified by VOSA should have been rectified and he had no excuse for the vehicles condition at the time it was inspected.

Members expressed concerns about the nature of some of the vehicle defects that they reasoned an average person with no mechanical knowledge would have been able to identify.  Despite previously giving no cause for concern, the Sub-Committee believed that the serious degradation of some of the vehicle’s key components and a lack of basic maintenance knowledge meant that the driver’s conduct had fallen significantly short of the standards expected of a licensed driver.

Resolved:

That the Hackney Carriage vehicle driver’s licence be suspended for a period of six weeks on the grounds that the drivers conduct had fallen short of expected standards, to allow time for reflection and encourage future compliance.

(v)                MK – Existing Private Hire Vehicle Driver

The Chairman agreed to hear the case which had been added as a supplementary item for urgent consideration. The Chairman indicated that he had decided to hear the case because of the seriousness of the offence and the fact that the incident had taken place after the initial agenda had been despatched.

Mr Ratcliffe presented the case on behalf of the Authority.

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

Mr Ratcliffe explained that the driver had been charged with a serious motoring offence whilst driving a private vehicle and not in his capacity as a Private Hire vehicle driver. Additional information from the Police Officer, who arrested the driver at the scene of the offence, was presented to the Sub-Committee.

MK advised that he had had a number of recent family tragedies to contend with and this had caused him to make some poor decisions at the time of the incident.

The Sub-Committee reasoned that there had indeed been difficult personal circumstances surrounding the incident. However, Members were concerned about the choices the driver made and the fact that his behaviour could present a danger to the public.

Resolved:

That the Private Hire Vehicle Drivers Licence be revoked with immediate effect in the interests of public safety and given that the driver’s conduct was dangerous and therefore significantly below the standards expected of a licensed driver.

Background papers: exempt