Agenda item

To determine a private hire/hackney carriage drivers licence.

The Committee returned to Item 3.

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

The Committee considered the Enforcement Officer’s report.

A Drivercheck of DVLA records on the driver as part had revealed a motoring conviction for an MS90 offence (failure to give information as to identity of driver). The offence was on 01 April 2016 and he was convicted on 25 April 2017 for which he received six penalty points. Including points from a previous speeding offence, the driver therefore had a total of nine penalty points on his licence.

The driver apologised for not reporting his conviction to Uttlesford District Council. He said he would like to think he was a fit person to work as a taxi driver. His work taking children to school was just a small job and he would never put their safety at risk.

Members noted the police had had to make five requests to the driver and his wife to identify who the driver of the car was when it had been speeding. The driver said at the time it had been a chaotic period in his life because he had been undergoing cancer treatment. The Solicitor advised that members could not take three of the aforementioned requests for identification into account, because these had all been made to the driver’s wife.

At 11:45, the Committee retired to make its decision.

At 12:15, the Committee returned.

The decision was read to the driver.

Decision

The driver holds a licence with the Council for a joint private hire/hackney carriage driver and has done so since October 2016.  As part of annual due diligence checks by the Council, it was revealed that the driver had been prosecuted for an offence of failing to provide information as to a driver in respect of a speeding offence, details of which are set out in the officer’s report. By virtue of the 6 point endorsement, the driver no longer meets the council’s licensing standards.

Where an applicant does not meet licensing standards it is for the applicant to make their case that the council should depart from its policy.  Essentially the applicant must demonstrate that notwithstanding the fact that he fails to meet the council’s licensing policy he is a fit and proper person.

Members note that the circumstances of the offence, and the numerous opportunities the driver had to complete the simple paperwork as requested by the Police. Members note that a police officer attended the driver address to chase up his wife’s failure to complete the forms, which only served to highlight the importance of completing the paperwork, and that he was obviously aware of the speeding offence, and that he was expecting to receive additional paperwork thereafter.

Members note that the driver has had a period of ill health, and that during the time that the information notices were sent, the driver had a period of hospitalisation. However, Members also note that the driver was duly convicted at the Magistrates Court of failing to provide the information as requested, despite providing this evidence in explanation of why the forms were not completed. It is not for this Committee to try and look behind that conviction.

As it stands the driver no longer meets Council licensing standards, and although the driver has given some information as to how and why he failed to complete the appropriate paperwork, Members do not consider that to be enough explanation or mitigation to enable Members to depart from Council policy. Failure to respond to formal police notices is a serious matter, and Members do not consider that the driver has acknowledged that fact or provided strong enough mitigation in respect of his failure.

In addition, the driver did not consider it serious enough to report his intended prosecution or his conviction and points on his licence to the Licensing Authority, which is also a breach of the conditions of his driver’s licence.

In the circumstances, members are not satisfied that the driver is a fit and proper person and that it is therefore not appropriate to make a departure from its policy. The driver licence is hereby revoked under S61 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

The driver is advised of his right of 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.