Agenda item

To determine a review of a Private Hire & Hackney Carriage Driver Licence.

The Chair asked the driver if he was content to continue despite the late issue of his documents. The driver confirmed that he was content to proceed.

The Panel and Officers present introduced themselves to the driver.

The Licensing and Compliance Officer gave a summary of his report which requested that members determined a review of the driver`s Private Hire/ Hackney Carriage Driver Licence.

In response to questions from Members the Licensing and Compliance Officer confirmed;

• That the damage to the tyres could have been caused by a balancing issue.
• The damage to the tyres was not ordinarily visible while the wheel was in the usual position.
• The photographs provided within the agenda pack were the documents referred to as B1, B2 and B3 within the report.

The driver confirmed that he had nothing further to add.

In response to questions from Members the driver confirmed;

• No further action had been taken by The Police or other parties following the incident.
• No points were added to the driver`s license as a result of the incident.
• The driver returned to work as a taxi driver two months after the incident following treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
• The driver had volunteered to become a school driver post covid as a result of lack of work from his usual source, Stansted Airport. He had worked as a taxi driver sporadically for four years, currently three of four days a week.
• His employer confirmed that the vehicle was his responsibility once he collected it but was the employer`s property.
• The driver checked the vehicle visually when he collected it on Monday morning and admitted that he did not check it every day. The driver reported issues to his employer that arose from his weekly inspections and took action to rectify issues such as a flat tyre.
• The driver lived in Epping and collected the specific taxi in question from Stansted Airport daily to do the school run, returned the taxi to the Airport, and collected it again later in the day to complete the after school run. The taxi was under the control of the employer most of the time.
• The employer undertook vehicle checks at the end of each term, which was evidenced by the driver noticing changes within the vehicle when he returned after a break.
• The driver did not know the mileage of the vehicle.
• The driver apologised that the incident occurred and noted his remorse that his passengers were put at risk.

The driver left the meeting at 10:19am and the meeting was adjourned; the Panel retired to make its decision.

The driver rejoined the meeting at 10:50am and the meeting reconvened.

The Chair read the driver the decision notice.

The driver left the meeting at 10:52am.

DECISION NOTICE

The matter before the Panel today is an application for the review of the driver’s joint hackney carriage/PHV driver’s licence reference PH/HC4808. The driver is employed as a Home to School Transport (HtST) driver. This is a hybrid hearing with the Panel, our Legal Advisor and the driver in the Council Chamber at London Road and the other parties attending remotely. Due to a clerical error he did not receive the paperwork timeously but has agreed to deal with the matter on short notice today.

We have had the opportunity of reading the officer’s report in this case, a copy of which has been served on the driver, and we have also seen, as has he, the background documents annexed thereto including the photographs of the tyres in question.  We have had the opportunity of hearing from him, and in reaching our decision we have also taken into account national and the Council’s policy.

The facts of this matter are simple. On 6 July 2021, the Uttlesford District Council Licensing Team were notified by PC Lee Johnston of the Essex Constabulary Roads Policing Unit of an accident involving the driver.  PC Johnston’s report is included in the papers before us, and in brief, he attended the scene of a Road Traffic Accident on the A120 near to Stansted Airport, involving a vehicle driven by the driver, a Ford Tourneo minibus, index YR19HEZ, and another vehicle. Upon examination, the officer noticed that both the front tyres on the vehicle driven by the driver were worn to an extent that the ply/cords were visible on the inside. The photographs taken by PC Johnston during his vehicle examination are also before us.

The driver stated that, prior to the collision, he had been the only driver of the vehicle in question for some time. It had, therefore, been incumbent on him to ensure that the vehicle was in a roadworthy condition. Tyre wearing of the nature discovered by the constable’s examination would ordinarily occur over a prolonged period of time, suggesting that daily checks of the vehicle had not been carried out by the driver before using it to transport his passengers.   Given that he is employed as an HtST driver we cannot but regard this as being a very serious matter indeed.  We have heard from the driver and the Case Officer, and the former explained to us the manner in which he carried out his duties. When not on the road the vehicle was in the operator`s compound at Stansted and they carried out many of the routine checks and maintenance rather than him. We also note that the wear upon the tyres would not have been visible to a casual inspection, that the police have taken no action against him and that he was extremely sorry for what had happened.

However, the primary function of this Committee is the protection of the travelling public. The legislation makes this clear as does the case law and all authority in the area. We are not entitled to take into account issues such as hardship to the driver in the exercise of our statutory function. Our role is to determine whether or not he remains a fit and proper person to hold a HC/PHV licence and if we consider that he is not, then our duty is clear – we should revoke the licence.

In this case the driver was employed as an HtST driver and was therefore transporting children. He was involved in an accident in a vehicle the routine day to day maintenance of which was nominally his sole responsibility. However, he told us that for most of the time the vehicle was in the physical custody of the operator between, say 10.00AM and 2.30PM, overnight, and at weekends and during the school holidays and therefore he – and this Panel – cannot be certain as to what usage the vehicle had in those periods. We recognise that the driver has primary responsibility for a vehicle that supposedly only he drives, but we also acknowledge that he has no knowledge of the use to which it is put when he is not driving it. Further, we note that the defects in the tyres were not readily visible to the naked eye – the steering wheel has to be turned in order to expose the inner surface of a tyre.

This accident took place in early July on a main road and conditions would have been reasonably good. Mercifully he was not carrying passengers and on this occasion nobody was seriously injured. This could have been much, much worse.

Given the responsibility the operator also has for the condition of this vehicle, we will permit the driver to retain his licence. We note he is now checking his vehicle meticulously and he should continue to do so. We strongly urge him to study the conditions of his licence and follow them strictly, and we do not expect him ever to see him before us again