Agenda item

To determine an application for a Private Hire 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

The applicant addressed the Panel and provided them with an account regarding a number of serious allegations of sexual misconduct which had been disclosed on his DBS.

He explained that since the year of the first two entries on the DBS, he had applied for a number of jobs and has been refused because of those entries. These applications had included roles in the NHS, schools and taxi licences from other authorities.

He stated that in the case of all the allegations made against him, there had been no convictions. In the first two instances, the complaints were dropped and in the last one he was found not guilty in court.

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

• The first two allegations made against him were colleagues at his work. They were investigated both by the police and the employer, but he was not convicted.
• The third complaint was at a separate workplace, but the allegations were of a similar nature. Following an internal investigation which cleared him of misconduct, the complainant went to the police and the case went to court. He was acquitted following the inability of a jury to decide on a verdict.

The Driver said that he had not received a letter from the DBS to invite him to provide representations prior to disclosure of the allegations to the Council and he was not asked for evidence by officers in advance of the hearing. He produced a certificate of acquittal before the Panel which was the first time it had been seen by the Council.

Meeting adjourned at 16:05

The meeting reconvened at 16:18

DECISION NOTICE

The matter before the Panel today is an application for a new PHV driver’s licence. No information has been provided regarding the operator for whom he intends to drive and this of itself is somewhat worrying in the light of what the Driver said to us today.

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. The enhanced DBS Certificate reveals a number of very serious matters, including several serious allegations of sexual misconduct made against him which were not proceeded with but nevertheless concerned Essex Police enough to keep them on record. Two date back to 2008 and one to 2013. There are also two entries against him listed on the NR3 database of revocations and refusals, available to licensing authorities: as at the date of the report only Harlow Council has responded to the Council’s enquiries. We have not heard from Wolverhampton. We are specifically reminded that the Rehabilitation of Offenders legislation does not apply to taxi and PHV driving, that we must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities whether the Driver is a safe and suitable person to hold an Uttlesford licence, and, unlike in other forums, the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of any doubt.

In considering this application, we are 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.

A history of indecency is regarded by this Council as being a very serious matter and even though these matters are not convictions but allegations which were not proceeded with the DBS certificate does not say why the CPS did not see fit to proceed. 

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 told us that since the date of the first two entries on the DBS, he has applied for a number of jobs and has been refused because of those entries. These applications have been for roles in the NHS, schools, this is his third HC/PHV licence application, and van driving. Many of these applications have been, did he but know it, to organisations to which the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply, and further we note the complainants were workplace colleagues, one considerably younger than him. We are aware that English is not the Driver’s first language but he was unable to answer many of our questions and showed a tendence to blame the complainants for his troubles. He did however produce a certificate of acquittal this afternoon. This is the first time this has been seen by the Council and we also note he had the opportunity to correct his records last December. He did not take it up, and our understanding is that the acquittal was a directed one following the inability of a jury to decide on a verdict.

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.

Though in this case we are dealing with allegations rather than convictions, there appears to be some similarity and the behaviour concerned continued over a number of years. Over the years the Driver has shown no insight into his history and has made applications for various roles that would involve contact with vulnerable people and been rejected. He admits those rejections were because of the DBS. We agree with those refusals.  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 must make this determination ourselves but though not being in any way “bound” by the decisions of Harlow and Wolverhampton Councils we cannot but take note of the fact of those determinations.

We have listened to the Driver and we have read his DBS certificate, the transcript and the certificate he produced today most carefully. He is applying for a licence from us today because he needs to work around school times and because he has been told Uttlesford grants licences very readily. That is no longer the case, and his personal circumstances are not something we may take into account. The pattern of allegations against him is clear and consistent. We do not believe he should be placed in a position of trust where he will be with vulnerable people and over the years several schools and NHS Trusts have clearly thought the same thing. The jobs he has secured, night cleaning and the like, show the concerns of prospective employers, and we share 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 is not. There is a history of offending that troubles us greatly, the two NR3 entries – and our decision today will make a third – and if we are in any doubt about an applicant’s suitability our duty is clear. 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 the Council can.