Agenda item

To review an existing Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licence.

The Licensing and Compliance Officer gave a summary of their report which requested that members determine whether the Driver was “Fit and Proper” to continue to hold a Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licence.

The officer confirmed that the Private Hire/Hackney Carriage Driver's Licence was still in place and the Driver continued to work for their operator. 

The Driver addressed the Panel and provided an account surrounding her recent conviction of criminal damage. She maintains that she was wrongly convicted and was pursuing an appeal. In addition, the Criminal Cases Review Commission has accepted the referral of her case.

In response to questions from the Panel, the Driver clarified that the flag in question was an A4 piece of paper with a depiction of a gay pride flag. She was unsure how long the poster had been put up for, however she believed that it was the same day, and her actions were in response to the dog getting agitated.

She highlighted that she had a difficult relationship with the neighbour in question, so did not ask them to remove it at the time.

Meeting adjourned at 16:49

Meeting reconvened at 17:10

DECISION NOTICE

The matter before the Panel today is for a review of HC/PHV driver’s licence. This hearing was adjourned from 7^th August to enable her to attend. She duly did so and without hearing from her we would not have been able to arrive at a fair determination of this matter.

We are charged with determining whether she is considered ‘fit and proper’ to continue holding the licence, and depending on our determination upon that issue, we may impose any of the following sanctions:

(a)            No further action

(b)            A suspension of the licence for a prescribed period

(c)             Revocation of the licence

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

(i)              Unless they are satisfied

(a)            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:

(i)              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

(ii)             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 she, the background documents annexed thereto.

The facts of the matter are as follows, and it is fair to say the problem has its roots in what is a long-standing neighbour dispute, about which we have no view.

In March 2022 the Council received a complaint from the Driver’s neighbour regarding parking issues. She does not reside in the District of Uttlesford. Her then operator advised this was a dispute with complaints from both parties that had been referred to the local council and police. We concluded that this was not a licensing issue and the complaint was closed. In December 2022 the Driver contacted the Licensing Department to advise that she had attended the Magistrates Court regarding a dispute with a neighbour and that a further court date had been set for April 2023. The Driver then rang to advise that she had been found guilty of criminal damage, she was appealing the verdict and that the neighbour dispute involved her removing a poster from a fence which was annoying her dog as it kept flapping. She said she returned the poster to her neighbour by posting it through his letterbox, and he contacted the police.

The Driver sent copies of a Restraining Order in respect of their neighbour, and a Community Order against her for 100 hours of unpaid work to be carried out. The next day, TaxiPlus advised that the Driver’s DBS certificate was no longer current and their employer advised that they had submitted a new DBS application the result of which the Council would receive as soon as possible.

On 18 May the Senior Licensing and Compliance Officer, Jamie Livermore, sent a S115 data request form to Essex Police to enquire about the circumstances that led to the conviction. They responded to explain that the Driver had been arrested for racially aggravated criminal damage for cutting  down her neighbour’s gay pride flag with a pair of scissors, and that the victims felt that this was due to her being homophobic. The new DBS certificate showed a conviction for an offence of “Destroy or damage property (value of damage £5000 or less – offence against Criminal Damage Act 1971 only). The disposal was a Community Order, costs of £620 and a Restraining Order - Protection from Harassment, and an unpaid work requirement. The Driver was therefore advised that her licence would be referred to the Licensing Panel for determination and she was asked for her comments. The Driver responded with the basic facts that she had been charged with criminal damage at Chelmsford Magistrates, had received a fine and restraining order and unpaid work hours.

The Driver has complied with the conditions of her driver’s licence by informing us about the conviction, providing us with copies of the relevant documents and keeping us updated at all times. She maintains that she was wrongly convicted and is pursuing an appeal. The employer are happy for her to continue driving and do not consider her to be a danger to the public. The Licensing Officer has told us today that they had offered to attend today to support her but she had declined.

We have read all the papers before us most carefully and we have listened to what the Driver has said to us. She has given us a detailed account of the problems she has had with her neighbour since he moved in next door, and this includes parking issues, misuse of drugs, ASB and noise. Specifically, she told us he was served with a noise abatement notice by the relevant local authority.

She confirmed that the object which leads to her being before us today was a poster, not a physical flag, and that she had taken legal advice regarding the action she could take regarding affixing materials to her property. She further told us that the neighbour had admitted in cross examination that he knew he had affixed the poster to her property, and that the Criminal Cases Review Commission has accepted the referral of her case. We are advised they have to be satisfied of certain things before they accept a case and if they are satisfied there are defects in a conviction the conviction is quashed.

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.

2.7These 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 she 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. The Council takes its responsibilities under the Equality Act seriously, though on the other hand Kinect do not consider her to be in any way a risk to those passengers she carries, and in short that these convictions relate to a specific person and this behaviour is unlikely to be replicated as against anyone else.

We have carefully considered whether the Driver remains a fit and proper person to hold an HC/PHV driver’s licence and on balance we have concluded that she is. If she had not attended today, we would not, perhaps, have been able to arrive at this view. We have noted what she has said about the CCRC and that she has the support of her employer. We note the admission apparently made by the neighbour in court regarding trespass to property and were told he had recently been fined for parking in a manner that obstructed her driveway. In short, the parties do not speak.

We do not think the Driver is a danger to the public and nor does her employer: she remains at work and they offered to accompany her today. We therefore will allow her to keep her licence but do not expect to see her before us again.

Meeting ended 17:15