Agenda item

To consider whether the individual should have their private

hire/hackney carriage driver’s licence suspended or revoked.

The Panel and Officers present introduced themselves to the driver.

The Solicitor clarified that Councillor Driscoll was attending the meeting for training purposes and would not participate in the meeting.

The Licensing Support Officer gave a summary of her report which requested that Members determine whether the applicant is considered ‘fit and proper’ to be granted a Private Hire Driver licence with this Authority

The driver confirmed that she had not intentionally mislead the council and had honestly thought that the convictions that occurred forty years ago were spent and irrelevant. She apologised to the Committee.

In response to questions from Members the driver confirmed:

·       She has worked throughout her adult life, including forty years as a legal secretary.

·       She did some irresponsible things when she was twenty years old which resulted in her spending four weeks in prison.

·       She had subsequently put this period behind her and moved forward with her life, family and career.

·       She confirmed that the driving she undertook was school contract work.

·       She again apologised for her mistake and bad judgement.

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

The driver rejoined the meeting at 11:23am and the meeting reconvened.

The Chair read the driver the decision notice.

The driver left the meeting at 11:26am.

DECISION NOTICE

The matter before the Panel today is an application for the grant of a new HC/PHV driver’s licence to the driver. If successful she has an offer of employment with Lucketts of Watford.

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 she, the background documents annexed thereto and we have had the opportunity of hearing from the Case Officer and from the driver.

Briefly, the enhanced DBS certificate submitted as part of the licence application discloses two historic convictions for shop theft in 1980 and 1981. These convictions are over forty years old, but unfortunately, the driver failed to declare this information on his application form.  The Rehabilitation of Offenders regime does not apply to the licensing of HC/PHV drivers. Question 6 of the UDC application form clearly asks “Do you have any spent convictions?” the box ticked is “No” (copy attached).  We are entitled to take into account spent matters.

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 driver. She told us that she did not intend to mislead the council and that that she genuinely believed the convictions to be spent. She told us that she had little recollection of the matters after forty years, that she was very sorry and that she did not realise that there were three convictions and not two. She apologised to the Panel.

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 she is not, then our duty is clear – we should refuse the application.

We have heard what the driver has had to say, and we appreciate her position, She has consistently been employed in positions of trust and genuinely believed that she was a fully rehabilitated person. There are few occupations exempted from the regime and HC/PHV driving is one of them: she was extremely apologetic, deeply remorseful and we do not consider her to pose any risk to the public.

We are therefore prepared to grant her a licence but would urge her to read forms very carefully before signing them in future.