Agenda item

To review an existing Private Hire & Hackney Carriage Driver licence.

The Panel and Officers present introduced themselves to the driver.

The Licensing and Compliance Officer gave a summary of the report which requested that Members determine whether the applicant is considered ‘fit and proper’ to continue holding their licence.

The driver confirmed;

·        They loved their job and had a great rapport with the children they transport and their parents.

·        They were sincere in their apologies and promised that the error would not be repeated.

·        They wanted to continue driving to provide continuity for the children they transport to school, some of whom have disabilities and benefit particularly from continuity of care.

In response to questions from Members the driver acknowledged that the children in the car or on the crossing could have been injured due to their actions.

The driver could not provide any reason for their driving errors.

The driver left the meeting at 11:14am and the meeting was adjourned; the Panel retired to make its decision.

The driver rejoined the meeting at 11:35am and the meeting reconvened.

The Chair read the driver the decision notice.

The driver left the meeting at 11:40am.

DECISION NOTICE

The matter before the Panel today is an application for the review of the HC/PHV driver’s licence held by the driver. The driver is employed by 24 x & Limited on the Home to School Transport side of the business and we understand they are currently suspended from their duties and a decision regarding their future will be made following our decision today. 24 x 7 Ltd are not here today in support of the driver. The driver has appeared before us today and we have listened carefully to what they have had to say to us.

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 the driver, the background documents annexed thereto and viewed the video footage provided by the complainant together with the workplace disciplinary report subsequently prepared by 24 x 7. We have also had the opportunity of hearing from another Licensing Officer, the case officer being unavailable due to technical issues, and have read the papers before us most carefully.

The facts of the case are that on the 17 March 2022, the Uttlesford Licensing Team were in receipt of a complaint from a member of the public regarding an incident that had occurred earlier the same day. The complainant alleged that the driver of vehicle registration EU71 AXX was driving ‘’aggressively’’ on a pelican crossing where school children were crossing while on a red light in Histon, Cambridgeshire. A 49 second video clip of the incident was supplied by the complainant, and we have viewed this carefully.

Licensing Officers contacted the vehicle proprietor, 24x7 Ltd, who identified the driver. 24x7 had already asked the driver for a statement of the events and this is also before us. The video footage appears to show the vehicle intermittently moving forwards while young pedestrians and cyclists were attempting to cross the road at the red light, putting them at risk of harm. We note that the reaction from at least two of the pedestrians appears to show their concern at the vehicle’s movement. This would seem to contradict the driver`s statement to their employer in which they refer to the vehicle being ‘’stationary’’.

Once 24x7 were provided with the video footage, they confirmed to the Licensing Team that they had decided to suspend the driver with immediate effect. That workplace suspension was subsequently rescinded. An interview was held between Licensing Officers and the driver on the 1 April 2022. The notes of this are before us, and it was explained that while being ‘stuck’ on the crossing was beyond the driver`s control, moving the vehicle forwards while pedestrians were crossing immediately in front of it was unacceptable and below the standards expected of a professional licensed driver. The driver recognized this and apologised to officers.

We have listened to what the driver has had to say and have viewed the video footage. The driver was patently distressed, and we recognise that the children they drive need continuity and routine. However, we consider the video conclusive. This is not an acceptable standard for a professional driver: The driver should not have put themself and their passengers into this position and nor could they extricate herself from it. The driver failed to anticipate the impact their behaviour might have on the children on the crossing and in the car, and in answer to our questions the driver accepted that in the worst-case scenario they could have injured a child. The video does not support the driver`s version of events: they were driving aggressively, and this is never acceptable. In a professional driver, undertaking a fully regulated activity it is even less acceptable.

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 the person before us is a fit and proper person to continue to hold a HC/PHV licence and if we consider that they are not, then our duty is clear – we should revoke the licence.

This was an incident of aggressive driving which took place in the course of the driver’s employment as a school contract driver, which is a fully regulated activity under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act and there were child passengers in the car. It was captured on video and there is no excuse. This was unwarranted misbehaviour in the course of employment, there were children in the car, and others on the crossing, who were, we think, put into genuine fear of harm. Sadly, we do not consider the driver to be a fit and proper, ie safe and suitable, person to undertake work of this kind.

Accordingly we revoke the driver`s licence and we do so with immediate effect on the grounds of public safety. The driver has a right of appeal to the Magistrates Court which must be exercised within 21 days and ordinarily the licence would remain in being pending the determination of such an appeal.  However, in this case we consider the driver poses an unacceptable risk, which is why we have taken the decision we have and they do not have this period of grace. They will receive a letter from the Legal Department explaining the position.