Agenda item

To review an existing Private Hire Driver’s Licence.

The Licensing and Compliance Officer gave a summary of his report which requested that Members determine whether the applicant was suitable to hold a Private Hire Driver’s Licence.

It was confirmed that the Driver had held a licence since 2017 and no previous incidents or complaints had been noted.

In response to questions, the Licensing and Compliance Officer clarified that the complaint before the Panel was based on an email and recordings which had been submitted by the partner of the passenger. Officers had not had any co-operation from the passenger, despite several attempts to make contact with them.

Having reviewed the recordings, the Officer felt that the passenger was offering non-committal answers but was unable to gage how they were feeling.

The Driver addressed the Panel and said that they could not remember when the incident took place, nor who the passenger was. The first time that they were made aware of the events was when they were suspended by their company.

They said that they were not racist and got along with the other taxi drivers as well as their customers.

They concluded by saying that they were sorry for wasting the Panel’s time.

In response to questions, the Driver clarified the following:

• They were suspended for two weeks and received a final written warning from their company over the incident.
• Moving forward, they were looking to install a camera in their taxi and to also moderate their language when speaking to passengers. 
• They picked up hundreds of passengers each week, so were unable to recall the specific conversation and passenger.
• The Driver could not recall a time when any passenger of theirs had exited the taxi early. They always got on with people and had never had any complaints until now.

The Driver said that they were sorry for all the work that the complaint had caused and for the time wasted.

Meeting adjourned at 14:11 for the Panel to retire to make their decision.

The meeting was reconvened at 14:42

DECISION NOTICE

The matter before the Panel today is for a review of HC/PHV driver’s licence. This matter was referred to Uttlesford by officers of Chelmsford City Council following an incident on 15^th February 2023. 

We first consider the provisions of Part II of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. S 51 thereof states :

51(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of the Act, a district council shall, on the receipt of an application from any person for the grant to that person of a licence to drive private hire vehicles, grant to that person a driver’s licence:

Provided that a district council shall not grant a licence

(a)  Unless they are satisfied

(i)            That the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a driver’s licence.

This responsibility is ongoing and whether the Driver remains a fit and proper person is what we must decide today

S61 goes on to state:

A district council may suspend or revoke a driver’s licence for:

(a)  That since the grant of the licence he has-

(i)            Been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty, indecency or violence: or

(ii)          Been convicted of an offence under or has failed to comply with the provisions of the Act of 1847 or of this part of the Act: or

(b)  Any other reasonable cause.

In the event of a licence being revoked a driver has the right of appeal to a Magistrates Court

Para 1.3 of this Council’s Suitability policy is clear:

“If a licence holder falls short of the fit and proper standard at any time the licence should be revoked or not renewed on application to do so”

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. We have listened to two recordings of the conversation between the Driver and the complainant, made by her at the time. However, the actual complaint was made by her partner, and she herself has chosen not to engage with officers regarding the matter despite the making of several approaches.

The facts of the matter are as follows. The Licensing Team received an email from Mr Daniel Winters of Chelmsford City Council on 16 February 2023, in which he explained that a complaint had been received regarding the conduct of the Driver during a journey with a fare paying female passenger on 15 February 2023. Mr Winters subsequently forwarded two voice recording attachments to Russell Way, Uttlesford District Council’s former Licensing Manager. These were then passed to David Cole, Licensing and Compliance Officer at UDC.

These recordings contain a conversation between the complainant and the driver in his vehicle that she was travelling in on 15 February 2023. The Complainant began to record the conversation after the Driver used obscene language whilst speaking to her. It should be noted that the complainant is of mixed heritage herself and found the language used particularly upsetting.

The Driver can be heard during the first recording using further obscene language. During the second recording he used obscene language again when talking about his controller giving him an airport run. The complainant informed her partner, who emailed a complaint initially to Fairway taxis, who in turn informed Chelmsford City Council. The matter was then referred to UDC by Mr Winters. We have read the emails and listened to the recordings. They are not pleasant.

We have also had the opportunity of hearing from the Driver and from the Case Officer.

The Driver told us that he did not really remember the incident and that his operator had subjected him to a two week disciplinary suspension at the end of which he was given a final written warning.

We have listened to the recordings and we find the language used unacceptable. We cannot let this pass; however, we note that the Driver has attended before us today, was apologetic and has a six year driving history with the Council. We also note that the complainant has not engaged with officers, despite a number of requests to do so.

In reaching our decision, we are mindful of the provisions of the Council’s Suitability Policy, a copy of which is before us. It states that the overriding aim of any Licensing Authority when carrying out its functions relating to the licensing of Hackney or Private Hire Drivers, Vehicle Proprietors and Operators must be the protection of the public and others who use (or can be affected by) Hackney Carriage and Private Hire services.

We agree.

Appendix A is more specific, and we quote the relevant provisions here:

2.2 It is important to recognise that once a licence has been granted, there is a continuing requirement on the part of the licensee to maintain their safety and suitability. The licensing authority has powers to take action against the holder of all types of licence (drivers, vehicle and operators) and it must be understood that any convictions or other actions on the part of the licensee which would have prevented them being granted a licence on initial application will lead to that licence being revoked.

2.7 These guidelines do not replace the duty of the licensing authority to refuse to grant a licence where they are not satisfied that the applicant or licensee is a fit and proper person….

2.9 A driver has direct responsibility for the safety of their passengers, direct responsibility for the safety of other road users and significant control over passengers who are in the vehicle. As those passengers may be alone, and may also be vulnerable, any previous convictions or unacceptable behaviour will weigh heavily against a licence being granted or retained.

We take this responsibility seriously. 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 a person 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.

We have listened to the Driver, and we have read and considered the other material before us. We also note that he was subject to a disciplinary procedure by his operator. This was a two week suspension and we gather he has suffered financial hardship as a result thereby. We consider, given his age, that this is punishment enough. He also received a final written warning which is a serious matter. He states he enjoys his work and gets on with customers.

He has suggested the installation of a camcorder in the car, and provided it is GDPR compliant we think this is an excellent idea. He must moderate his language in the future, and we suspect his employer have said the same thing

We have carefully considered whether the Driver remains a fit and proper person to hold an HC/PHV driver’s licence and by the slightest of margins we have decided he may retain his licence. However, we emphasise that behaviour of the kind which brought him before us today is never acceptable and we stress it must never occur again. The Driver must appreciate that as with his employer, he is on his final chance with the Council and we do not expect to see him before us ever again.

Meeting ended 14:53