Agenda item

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

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

The Panel and Officers present introduced themselves to the applicant.

The Licensing and Compliance Officer gave a summary of her report which requested that members considered a Review of a Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Driver Licence.

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

• The Driver License Application Form submitted was signed by the applicant and that the two signatures required within the document looked reasonably similar.
• It was necessary for an applicant to sign the Driver License Application Form.

In response to questions from Members the applicant confirmed;

• The applicant did not complete the form.
• If the applicant had completed the form he would have declared the previous conviction as he was not dishonest.
• The applicant confirmed that he had informed the operator of his penalty points and explained that the operator also had access to the DVLA site and had the ability to check their employees records.
• The applicant said that he was told to sign the blank form and that he did not see the completed form. He confirmed that the signatures dated 23/12/2021 on pages 4 and 5 of the application form were his signatures and noted that his signature was rarely identical.
• The applicant said that the operator wanted the forms completed as quickly as possible.
• The operator had apologised for the oversight in inaccurately completing the form on the applicant’s behalf.
• On the day the form was signed four other drivers were present and also signed blank forms.
• The applicant had worked for the operator since August 2021 and was previously a Public Service Vehicle driver working with buses.

The applicant left the meeting at 11:06 and the meeting was adjourned; the Panel retired to make its decision.

The meeting reconvened at 11:18.

The Chair confirmed that the Panel had resolved to grant the applicant his license.

There was a unanimous vote to grant him a license and to write to the operator.

DECISION NOTICE

The matter before the Panel today is an application for the grant of a new HC/PHV driver’s licence to the applicant. If successful he has an offer of employment as a Home to School Transport (HtST) driver. This is a hybrid hearing with the Panel, and our Legal Advisor in the Council Chamber at London Road and the other parties, including the applicant, attending remotely. Due to a clerical error he did not receive the paperwork timeously but has agreed to deal with the matter on abridged notice.

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 and we have had the opportunity of hearing from the Case Officer and from the applicant.

                 .

Briefly, the Drivercheck report submitted alongside the application dated 5^th January 2022, a copy of which is before us, shows that the applicant has 3 points on his DVLA licence for a TS10 on 16^th June 2018.  Unfortunately, he failed to declare this information on his application form.  The Rehabilitation of Offenders regime does not apply to the licensing of HC/PHV drivers. The Drivercheck report dated 5^th January 2022 (copy attached) showed that the applicant has 3 points on his DVLA licence for a TS10 in June 2018.  Unfortunately, the applicant failed to declare this information on his application form.  Question 4 of the UDC application form clearly asks “Do you have any endorsements on your DVLA Licence” the box ticked is “No” (copy attached).  The UDC application form also clearly states that “You must include all Driving Licence Endorsements within the last 7 years”.

The applicant did not enter the details of this conviction on the form, and though it would normally be spent and would drop off his licence, this does not apply to PHV licensing and we are entitled to take into account spent matters.

Question 4 of the UDC application form clearly asks “Do you have any endorsements on your DVLA Licence”.  The box ticked is “No”.  The form also clearly states that “You must include all Driving Licence Endorsements within the last 7 years”. The applicant did not enter the details of this conviction on the form.

When interviewed over the telephone he stated that the form had been completed by his intending employer, rather than he himself, and that he believed the points were spent. This raises two issues – it is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure the application documentation is correct, and it shows a failure to familiarise himself with the Council’s requirements for the issue of a licence.

Clause 2.3 of the Council’s Driver Conditions policy states as follows:-

“Any dishonesty by any applicant or other person on the applicant’s behalf which is discovered to have occurred in any part of any application process (eg failure to declare convictions, false names or addresses, falsified references) will result in a licence being refused, or if already granted, revoked and may result in prosecution”

We have heard from the Case Officer and from the applicant. He is clearly very unhappy about what happened and we too are very unhappy about the practices of a number of PHV operators regarding the completion of driver licence application forms. He assured us that if he had completed the form himself then the conviction would have been declared but that instead the operator had asked him to sign a blank form. He was at a recruitment session and was one of five aspiring drivers. They were all instructed to sign blank forms and their putative line manager said she would do the rest. The operator had access to the DVLA check and the applicant was clear he told them about the conviction.  He also told us that the line manager had admitted the mistake was hers and that she had forgotten the conviction, but that he was not happy with the way the company had handled the matter. He felt that this had made him look dishonest, that he would have filled in the form correctly and that this was not satisfactory. We agree.

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. Our role is to determine whether or not an applicant is 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 refuse the application.

We have heard what the applicant has had to say and note that this appears to be yet another case in which an operator is cutting corners. We deplore the practice of requiring applicants to sign blank forms for the operator to complete on their behalf – the accuracy of their application is their responsibility, not the operator’s. We note how unhappy he was about this practice and that he had complained about it. We are therefore prepared to grant him a licence but would urge him to be very careful about what he signs in future.

The meeting concluded at 11:19am.