Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and declarations of interest.

There were no apologies for absence or declarations of interest.

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

RESOLVED that under section 1001 of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded for the following items 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 an application for a Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Drivers Licence.

The Licensing Support Officer gave a summary of her report which requested that Members determine whether the applicant was suitable to hold a Private Hire Driver’s Licence.

The Licensing Support Officer confirmed that the applicant’s previous licence revocations were declared on their application form.

The applicant addressed the Panel and explained that they were a taxi driver between 2003 and 2017 and, since the revocation of their licence, had been working as a delivery driver. They acknowledged that they had made a mistake.

In response to member questions, the applicant said that they had not applied for a taxi licence through Watford Borough Council as there had been no work in the area after the introduction of companies such as Uber and Bolt from 2014. They had been advised by their prospective employer to apply for a license through Uttlesford District Council (UDC) as they had done when they were previously working for them as a driver for disabled children.

The applicant presented a clear drug and alcohol Screening Certificate to the Panel and requested that this be taken into their considerations.

A representative from the applicant’s prospective employer then addressed the Panel. They highlighted that the applicant had an exemplary record when they were previously employed by the company, and they hoped to reemploy them again to transport children with Special Educational Needs. They had advised the applicant to apply for a licence with UDC as this would be in alignment with their other drivers who were also licensed by the Council. They concluded by saying that they considered UDC to be the gold standard of Licensing.

Meeting adjourned at 13:12 for the Panel to retire to make their decision

The meeting was reconvened at 13:37.

DECISION NOTICE

The matter before the Panel today is an application for the grant of a fresh HC/PHV driver’s licence. The applicant has previously held an Uttlesford licence which was revoked and if successful he has an offer of employment.

We have had the opportunity of reading the officer’s report in this case, a copy of which has been served on the applicant, and we have also seen, as has he, the background documents annexed thereto. We have had the opportunity of hearing from the Case Officer, from the applicant and from the applicant’s representative who spoke on his behalf. They also provided us with a clear drugs and alcohol screening certificate.

The applicant is known to the Council. In brief, they received a FORMAL WARNING for possession of cannabis. This does not constitute a conviction and therefore there is nothing regarding the matter on his DBS certificate. However, as a consequence of this his licence with Watford Borough Council was revoked by them, and thereafter his Uttlesford licence was revoked by committee with immediate effect for not declaring his revocation by Watford Borough Council. 

He then applied to TfL for a Private Hire Licence, but they refused his application due to his previous revocations. He did not apply elsewhere for a Private  ...  view the full minutes text for item LIC34

To determine an application for a Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Drivers Licence.

The Licensing Support Officer gave a summary of her report which requested that Members determine whether the applicant was suitable to hold a Private Hire Driver’s Licence.

The applicant addressed the Panel and explained that they regretted their actions from 8 years ago, but questioned the convictions included on the DBS form as nobody had been hurt. They said that when they were in court, the judge had given them the smallest possible fine.

They understood why their licence application had been brought before a Panel hearing, but felt that they were more than worthy of the drivers job which they had applied. They concluded by saying that they were not the person that the DBS made them out to be.

The Chair asked the applicant for further information regarding another caution on the DBS form. The applicant responded that they did not understand why the incident was on the DBS form, as the Crown Prosecution Service had dropped the case. The Solicitor clarified that a person would have received a caution if they had admitted to committing said crime, regardless of any further convictions being later pursued.

The applicant explained that the caution was as a result of an incident with a takeaway driver after they had nearly hit one of their family members; however, they had not gone out to intentionally harm anyone and nobody was hurt.

The Chair then requested further clarification on the applicants most recent convictions. The applicant explained that this had been a result of a disagreement with the family of another pupil at his son’s school, following the discovery of a quantity of cannabis in his son’s possession. He confirmed that no action was ever taken by the police against the other pupil.

Meeting adjourned at 13:53 for the Panel to retire to make their decision.

The meeting was reconvened at 14:10

DECISION NOTICE

The matter before the Panel today is an application dated 6th December 2022 for the grant of a new HC/PHV driver’s licence. If successful, he has an offer of employment.

We have had the opportunity of reading the officer’s report in this case, a copy of which has been served on the applicant, and we have also seen, as has he, the background documents annexed thereto. We have had the opportunity of hearing from the Case Officer and from the applicant, and we have considered the terms of the Council’s Licensing Policy. We remind ourselves that all applications are determined on their merits and we have discretion to depart from policy in appropriate circumstances.

On the DBS certificate attached to his application, he has two for Common Assault and Battery. He also has a caution for Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm. The case officer had an informal conversation on the 8th December 2022 with the applicant to discuss these convictions.

In the course of that conversation the applicant explained that  his son had been found with cannabis at school and he believed he was being exploited to sell this.  ...  view the full minutes text for item LIC35