Agenda item

To determine a private hire operator application.

The Chairman introduced the Panel and the procedure for determining a private hire operator application was read to the applicant.

 

The Committee considered the Enforcement Officer’s report.

 

Reachers Cars and Minibus Limited had applied on 21 March 2018 for the grant of a private hire operator licence. The address stated on their application was in Stansted, although at a later meeting Mr Butt, a manager of the Company, had said the Stansted office would not be manned. The application stated that they wished to licence 40 drivers and 40 vehicles with Uttlesford to do school contract work in Hertfordshire.

 

The Council’s policy surrounding the licensing of private hire operators stated that the Council would not licence any operators which did not carry out business predominantly in the District of Uttlesford.

 

The Enforcement Officer said to grant this application would be a departure from the Council’s policy and good reasons would need to be given to do this. Members would need to bear in mind throughout their decision making that this applicant had told the Licensing Officer that they would not be operating in Uttlesford and the Council had no evidence that the work was ‘accepted’ or ‘invited’ at the address in Stansted.

 

The Chairman invited Mr Butt to question the Enforcement Officer’s report.

 

In response to a question from Mr Butt, the Enforcement Officer said the Council’s Licensing policy had not changed since 2013.

 

Mr Butt said he had previously withdrawn an application in 2016, due to the Enforcement Officer’s guidance that policy changes were forthcoming.

                       

Mr Butt asked how many operators were licensed in the District, but were not operating in the District.

 

The Enforcement Officer said this was irrelevant to the application.

 

The Chairman invited Members to question the report.

 

In response to a Member question relating to the redacted email of July 2016, the Enforcement Officer tabled the original email.

 

The Solicitor said the email provided background information on why the previous decision to take the application to Committee was made.

 

Mr Butt was invited to present his own case to the Panel.

 

Mr Butt said he only wanted to be treated fairly and the same as his competitors. He added that he had been given incorrect information when he had previously applied for an operator’s licence and had not been aware that this decision would be taken by Committee.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Barker, Mr Butt said 99.9% of the Company’s work was reliant on school contracts.

 

Councillor Gerard asked Mr Butt in what area did the Company operate.

 

Mr Butt said the Company operated across Hertfordshire and said they had jobs in Stevanage, Sawbridgeworth, Cheshunt, London and Birmingham. He said he had always been honest and had never informed the Enforcement Officer that the Company worked predominantly in Uttlesford. He added that if granted a licence the Company could potentially expand its business into Uttlesford.

 

Councillor Gerard asked if it was fair to say that the Company had no work in Uttlesford.

 

Mr Butt agreed and said the Company had no work in Uttlesford.

 

The Enforcement Officer asked Mr Butt why the Company had applied for an Operator’s Licence in Uttlesford.

 

Mr Butt said it was due to the large pool of drivers in Hertfordshire who had been licenced by Uttlesford; if granted an Operator’s licence, this pool of drivers could be utilised and work for Reachers Cars.

 

The Solicitor explained the predominant use criteria but said Members needed to be aware of the Knowsley Council decision, whereby it was determined that a private hire licence could be granted if an applicant was found to be fit and proper, regardless of where they predominantly worked. She said the wording for private hire and operator licences was identical and therefore the same could potentially apply to operator licences. It was for Members to decide whether location had any bearing on an operator’s standing of being fit and proper.

 

At 10.35 the Committee retired to make its decision.

 

At 11.25 the Committee returned.

 

The decision was read to the applicant.

 

Decision

 

Reachers Cars and Minibus Limited have applied for an operator’s licence under s 55 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

Mr Butt for the company has advised that although they wish to be licensed by Uttlesford, they intend to actually operate private hire vehicles for school contracts in Hertfordshire.

 

They have stated that they are to have an operating address within the Uttlesford District and have rented an office at Regus House, at Stansted Airport.

 

The company is properly constituted and still operating and the Council has no other information suggesting that the company, and its directors are not fit and proper to hold an operators licence.

 

S55 of Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 provides that a district council shall grant a licence to an applicant, but that it shall not grant a licence unless they are satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold an operators licence.

 

Uttlesford District Council have stated in their licensing policy that they would not licence operators who do not carry on business predominantly in the District, as a result of the case R (on the application of Newcastle City Council) v Berwick on Tweed Borough Council 2009.

 

In that particular case, the judge did say that Berwick had a discretion under section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 whether to issue a licence to the proprietor of a hackney carriage vehicle and that it should not exercise that discretion in a case where the authority knew that the driver intended to operate unregulated outside the area covered by the licence. 

That proposition has been used for predominant use policies by authorities across the country to try and prevent applicants for licences undermining the local control of taxi licences by applying for licences with the cheapest authority, with no intention of operating there.

 

Members consider that an applicant who has little or no intention of working within its boundaries is not a fit and proper person within the terms of section 55, because he would be undermining a principle of “local licensing” that has been recognised as central to the private hire regime provided by the 1976 Act.

 

Members note the decision in R (on the application of Delta Cars and Uber) v Knowsley Borough Council earlier this year in respect of a predominant use policy for licensing drivers. However, Members note that although a correlation could be made between a predominant use policy in respect of drivers, and one in respect of operators, the two different licences can be distinguished.

 

Whilst a drivers’ licence could be considered a generic licence, and it is well accepted that a private hire driver can carry out his driving within any district if the trinity of licences is held, the situation is not the same for an operator. The intention of the legislation is to have local control, and therefore where an operator intends to operate from is a central part of the consideration of their licence.

 

Therefore, in this case, Members are mindful of the decision in Knowsley, but the Council’s licensing policy is quite clear, that it will not licence operators who do not intend to operate predominantly within the district. This policy has not been challenged by way of judicial review and remains in force.

 

Mr Butt has been quite clear in his assertion that his business is running school contracts in the Hertfordshire area, and clearly this is not predominantly within the district of Uttlesford.

 

Members do not have any other good reason to depart from their policy and therefore the application for an operator’s licence is rejected, and no licence will be granted.

 

The applicant is advised that he has a right of appeal against the decision of the committee on application to the Magistrates Court within 21 days of receipt of the written decision.