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 a number of existing Hackney Carriage vehicle drivers and new Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Driver licence applicants that had given sufficient cause for concern as to be referred to the Sub-Committee for consideration.

Members discussed the applications and referrals as follows:

(i)                 PTB – Existing Hackney Carriage Driver

PTB was in attendance with a legal representative, Mr Sarangi and both made representations to the Sub-Committee.

Mr Mark Marshall, Licensing and, Health and Safety Manager, who was in attendance with Mr Ian Taylor, Public Protection Officer presented the case on behalf of the Authority.

Mr Salthouse, Vehicle Mechanic, Blackpool Council, was also in attendance and provided additional commentary on behalf of the Authority.

Mr Marshall outlined a series of defects found with the driver’s vehicle during the course of a routine four monthly inspection at Layton Depot Central Vehicle Maintenance Unit (CVMU). It was noted that regular maintenance by the driver should have picked up some of the identified faults and some would have been obvious upon casual inspection and through the course of regular driving of the vehicle.

Mr Sarangi reported that following the inspection the vehicle defects had been rectified and the vehicle later passed the pit test the same day. He added that prior to that test; the garage routinely used by the driver for maintenance had been unable to inspect the vehicle prior to the pit test. The Sub-Committee noted that the vehicle had developed few faults prior to that particular pit test and accepted that there had possibly been a breakdown in communication between the driver and the licence holder regarding the maintenance schedule for the vehicle. Members also noted the driver’s difficult family circumstances around the time the vehicle failed the pit test.

The Sub-Committee accepted that some of the defects found during the routine inspection of the vehicle may not be obvious during a driver’s cursory vehicle assessment. However, members agreed that the number and seriousness of the defects gave cause for concern. The Sub-Committee also suggested that the driver should liaise regularly with the vehicle licence holder to ensure adherence to the conditions imposed on the Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licence.

Resolved:

That the Hackney Carriage Vehicle Driver should receive a severe warning letter, indicating that in the event of further offences suspension or revocation of the licence would be the likely outcome, for allowing a vehicle he had operated to be used in a condition that presented a serious risk to public safety.

(ii)               MJM - Existing Hackney Carriage Driver

MJM was in attendance and made representations to the Sub-Committee.

Mr Marshall presented the case on behalf of the Authority.

The Sub-Committee was informed of a drugs related offence that had involved the driver, which called into question his suitability as a licensed driver.

When questioned, the driver admitted to cultivating a banned substance with a view to selling the final product.  He added that he had no prior convictions, had been vulnerable at the time of the incident and later regretted his involvement.

The Sub-Committee expressed concerns at the nature and recency of the offence. Members acknowledged the drivers unfortunate personal circumstances at the time of the incident but reasoned that this did not excuse his behaviour.

Resolved:

That the Hackney Carriage Drivers Licence be revoked on the grounds that the driver was not a fit and proper person to hold such a licence due to the nature and recency of his offences.

(iii)             SEB - Existing Hackney Carriage Driver

SEB was in attendance and made representations to the Sub-Committee.

Mr Ryan Ratcliffe, Licensing Officer and Mr Luke Andrews, Licensing Officer, who was also in attendance, presented the case on behalf of the Authority.

The Sub-Committee was informed that during the course of a routine Disclosure and Barring Service check, it emerged that the driver had a number of recent convictions that he had failed to declare when attempting to renew his application with the Licensing Service.

The driver described a series of challenging personal circumstances he had to deal with at the time of the application and added that he assumed the section of the application related to previous convictions did not apply to him.

Members expressed concern at the recency of the offences and the driver’s failure to declare them. However, they accepted that perhaps he had simply been ignorant about the requirements for disclosure on his application.

Resolved:

1.      To not prosecute the driver for non-disclosure of the offences on his application to be licensed.

2.      To issue the driver with a warning letter in relation to his conduct indicating that if he was brought before the Sub-Committee again in the future, suspension or revocation of the licence would be the likely outcome.

(iv)              MAH – New Hackney Carriage Driver Applicant.

MAH was in attendance and made representations to the Sub-Committee.

Mr Ratcliffe presented the case on behalf of the Authority. He advised that he had received some late information relating to a recent conviction involving the applicant not included in the agenda. Members agreed to consider the additional information and include it in their subsequent discussions. The applicant was also in agreement that his case be heard in full.

Members were informed of the applicant’s extensive list of prior historical convictions for a wide range of offences, some that had involved violence.

The applicant described mistakes he had made in the past and admitted he had been naive and the victim of unfortunate circumstances such as regular unemployment. He added that he had received an offer of work should his application be successful.

The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant had not had any convictions since 2003 prior to the most recent offence. However, Members expressed concern at the number and nature of some of the offences and the fact that the applicant had not informed the Licensing Service of the most recent offence.

Resolved:

That the application for a Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licence be refused on the grounds that the applicant was not a fit and proper person due to his conduct falling well below the standards expected of a licensed driver.

(v)                JDS - New Hackney Carriage Driver Applicant.

JDS was not in attendance and did not make representations to the Sub-Committee.

Mr Ratcliffe advised that he had not received any notification of the applicant’s intention to be present at the meeting.

Members agreed to hear the case in his absence.

Mr Ratcliffe presented the case on behalf of the Authority.

Members were informed of the applicant’s extensive list of prior historical convictions for a wide range of offences some involving dishonesty. In addition, he had previously been before the Sub-Committee on a number of occasions.

Resolved:

That the application for a Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licence be refused on the grounds that the applicant was not a fit and proper person due to the number and nature of his offences and his conduct falling well below the standards expected of a licensed driver.

(vi)              KPD - New Private Hire Vehicle Driver Applicant.

KPD was not in attendance and did not make representations to the Sub-Committee.

Mr Ratcliffe advised that he had not received any notification of the applicant’s intention to be present at the meeting.

Members agreed to hear the case in his absence.

The Sub-Committee was advised that the applicant had failed to declare a number of convictions on his application to be licensed. In addition, Members were concerned at the nature and recency of the applicant’s offences.

Resolved:

That the application for a Private Hire Vehicle Driver’s Licence be refused on the grounds that the applicant was not a fit and proper person due to the nature and recency of his offences.

Background papers: exempt