Agenda item

To determine a private hire/hackney carriage drivers licence.

The driver in relation to Item 3 had informed the Enforcement Officer that he would be late, and so the Committee moved on to Item 4.

The procedure for determining a private hire/hackney carriage licence was read to the driver.

The Committee considered the Enforcement Officer’s report.

Martin Cockburn of 24x7 had advised that the driver had been taking on private unbooked jobs.  As a result, he was not was not offered any more work with 24x7 Limited.

The driver said he had not realised that it was wrong to transport friends and family in return for reward without first informing his employer. Losing his job had been very costly for him. He had never been fired from a job before and had used a lot of his savings. He had taken out a loan in order to buy a car to do work for another operator. He said he was ashamed and embarrassed, and he wished to apologise to Martin Cockburn and to the Committee.

In response to a member question, the Enforcement Officer said the driver’s car would not have been insured for journeys he had not informed his employer about.

In response to a member question, Martin Cockburn said no complaints had been made by customers about the driver.

At 10:25, the Committee withdrew to make its decision.

At 11:15, the Committee returned.

The decision was read to the driver.

Decision

The driver holds a joint private hire and hackney carriage drivers licence, and has been licensed since November 2015.

In August 2017, the driver’s employer became aware of the fact that the driver had been carrying out private work for family and friends, that had not been booked through an operator. The driver admitted he had done so, and advised he did not realise that family and friends amounted to private job.

He has technically committed an offence of undertaking a private hire booking without having an operator’s licence. As a result of this, the journeys he undertook would also have not been insured.

24x7 ended his employment. The driver has suffered significant financial hardship in the intervening months, and has tried to create a new job for himself by obtaining his own vehicle, and working for another operator.

Members have heard from the driver of his naivety and foolishness in carrying out the jobs, and not realising that these journeys needed to be booked through an operator. Members note that he had always driven his friends and family around before his was a licensed driver.

It is accepted case law that a journey for non monetary reward still amounts to a hire for reward, and therefore the requirement to book through an operator still applied. 

Members consider that the driver was particularly foolish not to realise that accepting £100 for a pre booked journey would amount to a breach of the legislation.

Members have taken note of the driver’s contrition in respect of these errors in judgment, and do accept that the driver was naïve and ill informed as to the requirements of him.

Members also note that the driver’s former employers 24x7 had not received any other complaints regarding him, and the Enforcement Officer had no other cause for concern.

Members take the matter of undertaking private jobs not through an operator as a serious matter, and also driving without insurance is a particular public safety concern, as it is an integral part of being a responsible road user, and for protection of the public. However, Members do consider that this foolish episode apart, the driver remains a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

However, members consider that this failure to follow the legislative requirements does warrant a sanction as a mark of disapproval of the driver’s conduct and as a deterrent to others, and that in the circumstances a suspension of the licence would be appropriate. In considering the length of the suspension Members can take into account the drivers past history, the seriousness of the breach and any other aggravating or mitigating factor, and the financial effect of any suspension upon the driver.

Other than this particular incident, there is no history of any problems, and the driver has admitted his mistakes. However, the issue was a serious one, resulting in a breach of the law and driving without insurance, and members consider that a significant suspension will be appropriate in this case, as a mark of disapproval of his actions, and as a deterrent to other drivers who might consider doing work for family and friends. Members consider that a suspension of 2 months is appropriate, having considered the likely financial effect that will have on the driver. A longer suspension would cause a disproportionate financial effect, but any less would not recognise the seriousness with which the Council views these misdemeanours.

The driver is advised of his right to appeal against the Council’s decision, and can do so by application to the Magistrates Court within 21 days of receipt of the written decision, which will follow this meeting.