Agenda item

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

The Licensing Support Officer gave a summary of their report which requested that members determine an application for a Private Hire Drivers Licence.

In response to questions from the Panel, it was confirmed that there were no active points on the applicant’s DVLA Drivers Licence as these had now expired. However, the previous points would be retained on the Licence for period of 4 years.

The applicant addressed the Panel and said that he had never been dishonest and did not intend to deceive on his application form. He confirmed that both he and his potential employer had checked the DVLA website at the time of submitting the application and there were no points displayed. 

He explained that the points were as a result of a problem with his previous employer. He had notified the company of a change of address but the letters informing him of speeding offenses in vehicles in his name were sent to the wrong address. He attended court with the driver who had been driving at the time of the offences, but as it had been 6 months since the offence, the points were given to him.

He said that he had never committed any other offences before or after the ones disclosed and that he wasn’t his intention to mislead. He was sorry for any offence caused and, if a licence was granted, he would never be seen before the Panel again.

In response to questions from the Panel, the applicant clarified the following:

• There were two separate MS90 offenses disclosed, along with an SP10. The Driver confirmed that the MS90s were both separate vehicles which were both driven by different drivers. The SP10 was due to driving at 71mph, in a 60mph limit.
• After moving from the previous address, the Driver had done a one-month redirection with the Post Office and informed relevant parties, including his employer of the change of address. However, his employer did not update his file and continued to forward the fines to the old address. They had only found out about the point on the licence when they were unable to rent a minibus.
• The Driver leased a number of vehicles from his previous employer, and he employed the drivers directly. Letters regarding any fines or offenses committed in the vehicles were sent to Head Office, who then forwarded them to him to deal with. As he had not received the letters, he was unable to inform the DVLA that he was not driving the vehicle and the points were added to his licence, as the registered owner.

Meeting adjourned at 14:20

The meeting reconvened at 14:50

DECISION NOTICE

The matter before the Panel today is an application for a new HC/PHV driver’s licence. If he is successful today he has an offer of engagement.

This application is made under 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.

It is this we must decide today.

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. Most important is his DVLA check which revealed a number of matters. None of these were listed in his application and we are reminded that the Rehabilitation of Offenders legislation does not apply to taxi and PHV driving.

Put very briefly, applicants to the Council must complete an application form. It should be done by them personally and it contains a declaration of truth. On the Driver’s application form the answer given to question 4, namely ‘Do you have any endorsements on your DVLA?’ had been ‘NO’

However, on checking the Driver’s driving licence details the DVLA record showed:

(a)            SP10 (Exceeding goods vehicle speed limit) - received 3 driving points.

(b)            MS90 (Failing to give information as to identity of driver etc.) - received 6 points.

(c)             MS90 (Failing to give information as to identity of driver etc.) - received another 6 points.

The Licensing Support Officer had a telephone conversation with the Driver where he was asked why he had not declared the points. He advised officers that the application form had been completed by the operator and that he thought the points had dropped off his licence.  He said that the two sets of six points were from few years ago when he had a franchise, had had people working for him, and using his vans leased in his name. He explained that one of his drivers had got caught speeding a few times and because the company he worked for hadn't updated the system with his new address, he did not receive any paperwork regarding the offences which meant he could not pass the drivers details over to the police.

Nevertheless UDC driver conditions policy states:

            Dishonesty

            2.3       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 (e.g. 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.

            Other motoring offences

2.28 A minor traffic or vehicle related offence is one which does not involve loss of    life, driving under the influence of drink or drugs, driving whilst using a mobile phone, and has not resulted in injury to any person or damage to any property (including vehicles). Where an applicant has 7 or more points on their DVLA licence for minor traffic or similar offences, a licence will not be granted until at least 5 years have elapsed since the completion of any sentence imposed or the date on which the number of points on the DVLA licence dropped below 7.

We have also had the opportunity of hearing from the Driver and from the Case Officer and have read the papers before us most carefully. The Driver gave us a lengthy account of his problems over the last few years, but apparently he had had a delivery franchise involving fifteen vans, and he had employed a number of others. However, he did not keep proper records, did not promptly notify DVLA or the company of his change of address and did not arrange for the Royal Mail to re-direct his post. He should have done, and he should have kept proper records and followed the company’s internal procedures. He did not. Further, in completing his application to the Council he relied totally on his potential operator. The picture he has painted today is one of chaos and that is not acceptable. He was evasive in answering our questions and emphasised the financial hardship he faces if his application was unsuccessful. That is not something we may take into consideration.

We are also mindful of the provisions of the Council’s Suitability Policy, a copy of which is before us. Appendix A contains the relevant details, and we quote them here:

2.5 Generally, where a person has more than one conviction, this will raise serious questions about their safety and suitability. The licensing authority is looking for safe and suitable individuals, and once a pattern or trend of repeated offending is apparent, a licence will not be granted or renewed.

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.

2.10 As stated above, where an applicant has more than one conviction showing a pattern or tendency irrespective of time since the convictions, serious consideration will need to be given as to whether they are a safe and suitable person.

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 listened to the Driver and we have read the papers before us. He told us that at some point he attended Court and the court Legal Adviser had stated that he should be disqualified under the totting up provisions: we can only assume the Bench accepted a severe hardship plea, but that is not something we may do. As an employer he was responsible for those working for him in 2020 and he signally failed in meeting his responsibilities in this respect. Even this month, he essentially delegated making his application to the Council to his potential operator. He does not meet the Council’s standards and he has told us nothing that would make us decide to exercise our discretion to depart from them.

We therefore have to consider whether the Driver is a fit and proper person to hold an HC/PHV driver’s licence and we have to conclude that he does not. It is not the points themselves that are in issue, since they have fallen away, but the fact that he failed to disclose their existence. He also failed to carefully read and check a document that he allowed a third party to complete on his behalf. That document contained a statement of truth, and sadly his application was therefore made dishonestly. We therefore refuse this application.

The Driver 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. He will receive a letter/email from the Licensing Department explaining this but he should be aware the Court does not have the power to grant a licence: only this Council can.