Agenda item

To determine a private hire/hackney carriage driver’s licence.

Because witnesses had agreed to be present for Item 7, the Chairman agreed to move the item forward in proceedings.

The procedure for determining a private hire/hackney carriage licence was read to those present.

The panel considered the Enforcement Officer’s report.

The driver’s private hire/hackney carriage driver’s license was referred to members to consider whether or not he remained ‘fit and proper’. There had been allegations by a customer about his poor behaviour during the course of their journey. Amongst other things, he had requested that she make payment for the journey by way of paying for fuel and had also repeatedly asked for her English telephone number, rather than him taking her to a cash point/ATM machine.

The aunt of the witness said her niece was staying with her over the summer. Her niece had recounted to her the information summarised in the report.

The witness said she had found the driver’s behaviour to be very inappropriate. She had only found out how much the driver expected her to pay for fuel at the petrol station, and did not recall being asked about any refund.

The Solicitor said the witness’ statement complied with the requirements of S9 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980, and as such had full probative value.

The driver said the witness had said she would pay by card but he could not process this payment because he had forgotten his phone. He then said she could pay for fuel, because the cost of the fuel would be cheaper than the cost of the journey she was wanting to make. He realised after she had paid for fuel that she was unhappy and therefore stopped attempting to make conversation. He had not stopped far from the Post Office and had had to find a safe place to pull over. Neither of them had known where the nearest cash machine would be.

In response to a question from the Enforcement Officer, the driver said he had not known that he was required to keep the meter running throughout the duration of the journey, despite the fact he had negotiated an alternative price.

The driver said taxi work was his only profession and he was relying on the money he earned from it.

At 10:55, the Committee retired to make its decision.

At 11:30, the Committee returned.

The decision was read to those present.

Decision:

The application before the Panel today is for the suspension or revocation of the driver’s joint private hire/hackney carriage licence number PH/HC0665 in accordance with S61  (1) (b) Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.- any other reasonable cause. The three year licence is due to expire on 31^st May 2019. The driver is also the proprietor of a private hire vehicle and has been licensed by the Council since  June 2016

We have had the opportunity of reading the officer’s very detailed 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.  They include:-

a.    Uttlesford District Council licensing standards for drivers.

b.    Uttlesford District Council conditions of licence for drivers.

c.    Notes of meeting between Sonia Williams and the customer.

d.    S.9 statement of the customer (the customer’s name has been redacted).

e.    Email from the driver dated 07 June 2018.

f.     Notes of meeting with the driver dated 25 June 2018

We have also heard from the customer today, in the presence of the driver, and we thank her for agreeing to attend and tell her story to us. We note that the agreement between her and the driver had been in respect of a journey from Saffron Walden to Great Dunmow Post Office and then on to an address in Thaxted. At some point during this journey it is alleged that the driver stated he would accept £35.00 worth of petrol as fare, and the customer has produced evidence of a payment in this sum to Cowell and Cooper of Thaxted.

At this point, we can conveniently deal with the question of whether the driver used his meter during the journey. A check of the driver’s vehicle has confirmed there is one installed but the customer does not believe it was used.  However, we note that both in interview and in an email to the Council dated 7^th June 2018 said he agreed a price with her, namely the £35.00 of petrol referred to previously.  If he failed to use the meter, then the driver may have potentially overcharged the customer which is an offence under Section 67(2) Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.  Furthermore, agreeing to a payment over the metered fare within the Licensing District is an offence under Section 55 Town Police Clauses Act 1847.  These are serious matters.

To resume, throughout the journey to Great Dunmow the customer claims the driver asked her a series of personal questions, in respect of her name, nationality, employment, residence, whether she lived alone, whether she had friends to go out with in the evening, whether she had a boyfriend.  Full details are in her statement, and we note it complies with the requirements of S9 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980. The customer also says that the driver repeatedly asked for her local telephone number and she refused to give this.  She also told the Enforcement Officer that the driver told  her several times that he wanted to take her out for lunch or dinner so that they could talk and became very insistent on this. She therefore felt very unsafe and afraid and she felt she had to accept to protect herself. As a result she terminated the contract in Dunmow and completed her journey by public transport. Since then she has given up her UK employment, is afraid to leave her home and has brought forward her return to Italy.

We have read the papers before us and we have heard from the customer, her aunt and the driver. We note that he contacted the Council on 7^th June by email to self-report the incident, but having considered the complainant’s statement made pursuant to S9 MCA 1980 she goes into considerably more detail as to the events of the journey. The driver, when speaking before us, concentrated upon the meter issue and the financial aspects of the transaction, which of themselves cause us some concern- a licensed driver should at all times be prepared for the taking of card payments, or otherwise be in a position to take a customer to the nearest ATM – rather than upon the other, seriously unprofessional, aspects of the transaction.

We are not a court of law, but we nevertheless do have a quasi-judicial function. We have weighed up with care what the customer and her aunt have said, and we have listened to the driver.  On a balance of probability, we find the two ladies to be more credible witnesses.

The allegations against the driver are very serious indeed. The primary function of this Committee is the protection of the public; the holder of a private hire/hackney carriage licence is in a position of great trust and we therefore have to be very sure that a driver is a safe and suitable person to be placed in this position and if we have any doubt then the protection of the public, some of whom may be very vulnerable, must come first. In this case we consider that  we have no alternative but to revoke the driver’s licence under S61 (b) of the 1976 Act as he is no longer a fit and proper person to hold it and because of the risk we consider he poses to the safety of the public, that revocation takes effect immediately

There is a right of appeal against this decision which must be exercised within a period of 21 days. Normally, during this period the licence remains in force, but since we have revoked the driver’s licence with immediate effect for the protection of the public this period of grace does not apply and he may not drive.  The driver will receive a letter from the Legal Department explaining this.