Agenda and minutes

To determine a private hire operator application.

The Chairman introduced the Panel and the procedure for determining a private hire operator application was read to the applicant.

The Committee considered the Enforcement Officer’s report.

Reachers Cars and Minibus Limited had applied on 21 March 2018 for the grant of a private hire operator licence. The address stated on their application was in Stansted, although at a later meeting Mr Butt, a manager of the Company, had said the Stansted office would not be manned. The application stated that they wished to licence 40 drivers and 40 vehicles with Uttlesford to do school contract work in Hertfordshire.

The Council’s policy surrounding the licensing of private hire operators stated that the Council would not licence any operators which did not carry out business predominantly in the District of Uttlesford.

The Enforcement Officer said to grant this application would be a departure from the Council’s policy and good reasons would need to be given to do this. Members would need to bear in mind throughout their decision making that this applicant had told the Licensing Officer that they would not be operating in Uttlesford and the Council had no evidence that the work was ‘accepted’ or ‘invited’ at the address in Stansted.

The Chairman invited Mr Butt to question the Enforcement Officer’s report.

In response to a question from Mr Butt, the Enforcement Officer said the Council’s Licensing policy had not changed since 2013.

Mr Butt said he had previously withdrawn an application in 2016, due to the Enforcement Officer’s guidance that policy changes were forthcoming.

Mr Butt asked how many operators were licensed in the District, but were not operating in the District.

The Enforcement Officer said this was irrelevant to the application.

The Chairman invited Members to question the report.

In response to a Member question relating to the redacted email of July 2016, the Enforcement Officer tabled the original email.

The Solicitor said the email provided background information on why the previous decision to take the application to Committee was made.

Mr Butt was invited to present his own case to the Panel.

Mr Butt said he only wanted to be treated fairly and the same as his competitors. He added that he had been given incorrect information when he had previously applied for an operator’s licence and had not been aware that this decision would be taken by Committee.

In response to a question from Councillor Barker, Mr Butt said 99.9% of the Company’s work was reliant on school contracts.

Councillor Gerard asked Mr Butt in what area did the Company operate.

Mr Butt said the Company operated across Hertfordshire and said they had jobs in Stevanage, Sawbridgeworth, Cheshunt, London and Birmingham. He said he had always been honest and had never informed the Enforcement Officer that the Company worked predominantly in Uttlesford. He added that if granted a licence the Company could potentially expand its business into Uttlesford.

Councillor Gerard asked if it was fair to say that the Company had no work  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

To determine a private hire operator application.

The Chairman introduced the Panel and the procedure for determining a private hire operator application was read to the applicant.

At 11.30am the Chairman adjourned the meeting to allow the Enforcement Officer to provide the applicant with a paper copy of the report.

At 11.35am the Chairman re-adjourned the meeting.

The Committee considered the Enforcement Officer’s report.

The application was submitted on 27 March 2018 for the grant of a private hire operator licence to Rainbow Travel Limited. The address the Company had stated they would operate from was the Regus Building, Stansted. They had initially put on their application form that they would operate from an address in Hemel Hempstead but then had crossed this out. The application form stated that the operator intended to employ 10-15 licensed drivers. At a later meeting with the Licensing Officer, Mr Ahmed, Director of Rainbow Travel Limited, said he had won school contracts from Hertfordshire County Council and he intended to use the Uttlesford licence for this, if granted.

Mr Ahmed had supplied the Enforcement Officer with copies of contracts he would use if granted an operators licence in Uttlesford. All of the contracts were for school contract work outside of Uttlesford and Essex, and the contracts were made at Mr Ahmed’s address in Hemel Hempstead.

The Council’s policy surrounding the licensing of private hire operators stated that the Council would not licence any operators which did not carry out business predominantly in the District of Uttlesford.

The Enforcement Officer said to grant this application would be a departure from the Council’s policy and good reasons would need to be given to do this. Members would need to bear in mind throughout their decision making that this applicant had not been operating in Uttlesford and the contracts supplied to Enforcement Officer had not been ‘invited’ or ‘accepted’ via the Company’s Uttlesford office.

There were no questions regarding the report.

The Chairman invited Mr Ahmed to make his case.

Mr Ahmed said he was a fit and proper operator and had two other operators’ licences with other Authorities. He said the Regus Office in Stansted was not manned as he did not have an operators licence in this District, and it would not be manned until a licence was granted. He had assumed he would be granted a licence by Uttlesford and had hired a number of UDC licenced drivers in anticipation, who were currently working as driver assistants until the licence was granted. He said this licence was much needed in terms of creating competition with the three or four large companies who were operating in Hertfordshire.

Councillor Barker asked where Mr Ahmed planned to expand his business.

Mr Ahmed said Rainbow Travel Limited operated across Hertfordshire but could move into Uttlesford if granted a licence.

Councillor Gerard asked whether the Company had any work in Uttlesford and, if not, had any preliminary discussions taken place regarding working in Uttlesford.

Mr Ahmed said he had no work in Uttlesford and any discussions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

Consideration of reports containing exempt information within the meaning of section 100I and paragraphs 1 and 2 of part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

RESOLVED that under section 100I of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded for the following item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

To determine a private hire/hackney carriage driver’s licence.

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

The Committee considered the Enforcement Officer’s report.

The driver’s latest three yearly enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check was dated 24 January 2018. This DBS check revealed a conviction dated 12 January 2016 at Paphos District Court in Cyprus for an offence of foreign legal possession of a class B controlled drug on 28 August 2011. The driver was fined 300 Euros and the conviction was removed from the Cypriot register on 12 January 2018.

The driver attended a meeting with the Enforcement Officer on 06 April 2018 to discuss the matter. He explained that he regularly travelled to Cyprus as he had family there. The driver explained that he was arrested in 2016 upon arrival and was taken straight to Court. He told the Officer that the hearing only took a few minutes in Greek. The driver explained that whilst he can speak some Greek he was not fluent and was unable to fully follow what was being said. He was made to pay a fine at the end of the hearing and thought it was a fixed penalty notice. He had no idea that he had been convicted as he received no paperwork from the Court. At this time, the driver explained that he was looking after both his mother and father. When he was questioned about why he incorrectly completed the renewal document, he claimed he was not aware that he had been convicted, only becoming aware when he received the DBS check in January 2018.

The Enforcement Officer said the driver still met licensing standards as the conviction was now spent. He said the decision before Members was to consider if he remained a ‘fit and proper’ person to hold a licence due to the nature of the conviction in 2016 and the fact he failed to declare it upon his renewal in 2016. He added that the driver had been an exemplary applicant and had fully cooperated with his investigation.

The Chairman invited the driver to address the Panel.

The driver explained that the cannabis which had been found was for his mother, who was very unwell at the time. In Cyprus he had taken responsibility for the drug, so his mother would not have to face the punishment and shame associated with the possession of drugs. He said he was completely unaware of the conviction and had assumed it was a penalty notice, due to the lack of information provided to him by the Cypriot court. He added that as soon as he was aware of the conviction he had contacted the Council, and the circumstances surrounding his unwell parents had also contributed to the situation.

The driver’s father made a statement to the Panel. He said his son had gone through a very difficult time in the past few years as his mother had passed away and he also had been very ill with cancer. He said his  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To determine a private hire driver’s licence.

The Committee was informed that the driver in relation to Item 6 had surrendered their licence.

To determine a private hire/hackney carriage driver’s licence.

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

The Committee considered the Enforcement Officer’s report.

The driver’s most recent enhanced DBS check was dated 13 March 2018 and revealed one caution from 2012 which the Council was aware of on his original application for a licence in 2015. The check also revealed a caution from

Essex Police dated 08 August 2017 for an offence of being an owner/person in charge of a dog dangerously out of control causing injury on 07 August 2017.

The driver was required under the conditions of his driver’s licence to notify the Council in writing of any cautions within seven days of the date of caution, however he had failed to do so.

The driver attended the Council Offices in Saffron Walden on 19 April 2018 to discuss the matter with the Enforcement Officer. The driver said that he had been at the vets in Colchester with his partner and their Staffordshire Bull Terrier on the date of the offence. His dog was wearing an orange harness which read ‘no dog’ to warn others to keep their dogs away from his. The dog was not muzzled but was separated from other dogs. The driver then dropped something and bent down to pick it up. At this time the lead snapped. The driver explained that a nearby lady started to behave hysterically and thought the driver’s dog may attack her, or her dog. She dragged her dog round which set the driver’s dog off and both dogs locked onto each other. The driver’s partner then pulled the dogs apart. The other dog was slightly injured.

The driver and his partner called the Police straight away to report the matter.

The other party logged a complaint with the Police and he attended Colchester Police Station the next day for an interview. After the Police viewed the CCTV footage of the incident they gave the driver a caution which he accepted and advised him to get a muzzle for the dog when he takes it out.

The driver was asked why he did not report the matter to the Council. He said he read the conditions three years ago when he first received his licence but had forgotten them. He also did not think the Council would need to know about the matter as it was not driving related.

The Enforcement Officer said the driver no longer met the Council’s licensing standards for drivers due to the undeclared Police caution. The matter before Members was to determine whether he remained a ‘fit and proper’ person to hold a driver’s licence.

At the invitation of the Chairman, the driver read a statement provided by his employer which highlighted his good character as a dependable employee.

In response to a Member question, the driver said he had owned the dog since it was a puppy. The dog was now three years old.

The Chairman asked how the lead had snapped.

The driver said it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To determine a private hire/hackney carriage driver’s licence.

The driver in relation to Item 8 had notified the Enforcement Officer that he would be unable to attend the Committee meeting. 

Members agreed to defer determination of the licence until the next meeting.

The meeting ended at 1.50pm.