Agenda item

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 The applicant has previously held an Uttlesford licence which was revoked and if successful he has an offer of employment.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 Hire Licence for three and a half years but has now submitted a complete application to the Council for a new Private Hire Licence.

Whilst our suitability policy has no defining criteria for warnings, only convictions or cautions, and the policy has no timeline when an applicant can re-apply for a licence following revocation, we do regard substance abuse very seriously. We have heard from the case officer, from the applicant, and from the applicant’s representative, and we have considered the Drug and Alcohol Screening Certificate with which we have been provided today.

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 and the applicant’s representative have had to say, and we have listened carefully. We note that the incident concerned was five years ago and that the Police saw fit to deal with the matter vial a warning.  However, the applicant did not report the actions of Watford Council to us within the short time span he was obliged to under the conditions of his licence. We regard this seriously, and of course substance abuse, be it alcohol or drugs, is also a matter of grave concern. We also note that if his application were successful he would be driving vulnerable children, and we repeat that the offence underlying all of this is one of misuse of drugs. Finally, we note the applicant is, and always has been since the revocation, been in work as a delivery driver.

We have considered all of this most carefully but sadly we do not consider the applicant to be a fit and proper person to hold an Uttlesford licence. He failed to disclose a licence revocation for drug abuse. We note what the applicant’s representative has told us, but our function is the protection of the public and we do not consider the applicant to be a fit and proper person to drive vulnerable people. We therefore refuse this application.

The applicant has a right of appeal to the Magistrates Court against this sanction and this right must be exercised within 21 days of the date of our decision. The applicant will receive a letter/email from the Legal Department explaining this but he should be aware that since this is a refusal, and not a revocation, that the magistrates have no power to grant him a licence.