Agenda item

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

The Chairman moved item six forward in proceedings as the driver for this item was present.

The panel considered the Enforcement Officer’s report.

Compliance checks being carried out by officers from Braintree District Council found the driver of a private hire vehicle to be ‘plying for hire’. When asked if he was working, the driver confirmed he was working and accepted the request to transport them to Tesco in Princes Road, Chelmsford. At the end of the journey a fee of £5 was paid. The Enforcement Officer also reported in his statement that he could not see the driver’s identification badge.

When the officers began writing in their pocket notebooks following the journey, the driver approached them and repeatedly asked what they were doing. The officers told the driver that they were checking for individuals ‘plying for hire’ and attempted to withdraw into the store but the driver followed and requested that the officers forget what had happened. The driver continued to confront the officers and when they made their way to a colleague’s vehicle and attempted to leave, the driver tried to grab the door/wing mirror.

Members were asked to consider whether the driver remained a fit and proper person as he had transported passengers in a licensed vehicle for hire and reward in a journey that was not pre-booked via an operator. Members were also advised that the failure to wear a private hire driver’s badge was an offence under section 54(2) Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

In response to a Member question regarding the statement of the Braintree District Council Officer, the Solicitor said the evidence could be relied upon and would stand up in a Magistrates court.

At the request of the Chairman, the driver gave his account of events on 23 May 2018.

The driver said he had been struggling with money and had much on his mind when he was approached by the two officers on Moulsham Street. He said he was not thinking straight and knew he had done something wrong as soon as the officers departed his vehicle. He said he had not tried to grab the wing mirror as the officers drove away, but instead was trying to give the money back. He had now been suspended for twelve weeks and had not driven for another operator.

In response to a Member question, the driver said he had his badge in the vehicle but he was not wearing it on his person at the time of the event.

The Enforcement Officer asked the driver what training had been provided by the Operator prior to taking the job.

The driver said he had a quick session at the Operator’s office and he was given the ‘green book of rules,’ which he had read briefly. He said he had not fully realised the implications of collecting passengers that had not pre-booked via an operator.

At 10.35, the panel retired to make its decision.

At 11.10, the panel returned.

The Chairman read out the decision.

Decision:

The application before the Panel today is for the suspension or revocation of a joint private hire/hackney carriage licence 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 31st December 2020: it is the driver’s first licence and was granted this January. He is currently suspended from his employment.

We have had the opportunity of reading the officer’s very detailed report in this case, together with the statement of an Enforcement Officer with Braintree District Council, which was made pursuant to the provisions of S9 Magistrates Court Act 1980 and which may yet be used in Court proceedings.  Copies of these, and the other documents listed below, have been served upon the driver.  These are:-

a.         Uttlesford District Council licensing standards for drivers.

b.         Email and witness statement from the Enforcement Officer.

c.         Email with employer dated 29-31 May 2018.

d.         Notes of telephone interview with the driver dated 11 June 2018.

e.         Emails between the driver and employer dated 18-19 June 2018.

Briefly on 23 May 2018, Officers from Braintree District Council were working in partnership with Officers from Chelmsford City Council in Chelmsford for the purposes of carrying our compliance checks on licensed drivers and vehicles.   At approximately 22.20 hours, two Braintree District Council officers were in Moulsham Street and approached an Uttlesford licensed private hire vehicle that was parked up, and the only person inside was the driver. The vehicle was a licensed private hire vehicle 1050, and the employer subsequently confirmed who the driver was.

The Environmental Health Manager at Braintree District Council knocked on the window and asked the driver if he was working.   He said he was, whereupon a journey to Tesco in Princes Road, Chelmsford was requested, to which request the driver agreed. The Enforcement and a colleague were duly transported there at a cost of £5. The driver did not appear to be wearing an identification badge.

When the Officers exited the vehicle they started to complete their pocket notebooks, at which point the driver got out of the vehicle and repeatedly asked them what they were doing. He was told that they were checking for individuals plying for hire and he asked what that meant.   He then asked the Officers to “forget” what happened and not to take any action, and subsequently attempted to impede their departure.

All private hire work undertaken by licensed drivers in a licensed private hire vehicle must be booked through a licensed private hire operator.   This “trinity” of authorisations must be in place, otherwise an individual may be committing an offence of plying for hire under section 54 Town Police Clauses Act 1847, which carries a maximum fine of up to £2500. Further, failure to wear a private hire driver’s badge is an offence under section 54(2) Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, which carries a fine of up to £1000 upon conviction. These are not trivial offences.

Information was received from the employer on 29 May 2018, to report that the driver had admitted to him that on the early hours of 24 May 2018, he transported passengers in a licensed private hire vehicle (PHV84) from Moulsham Street, Chelmsford to Tesco, Wood Street, Chelmsford and this was not pre-booked. The employer took a serious view of this and suspended the driver from his employment. It is not clear whether this is a different incident to the one reported by the Braintree Officers.

The Enforcement Officer interviewed the driver by telephone on 11 June 2018.   The driver stated that he had started his shift about 6pm that night and it had been very quiet as he had only completed one or two jobs. The driver accepted that the journey in question had not been booked through his employer and he confirmed the details of the trip. He claimed that this was the first time that he had done this, he had only been licensed driver since February, that he had only had basic training and that he did not know the rules. He confirmed that he reported the matter to his employer at the first available opportunity, but in fact, he could have made this report by telephone or email rather than waiting to do so in person.

We have heard from the driver and have considered carefully the S9 statement of the Braintree District Council Enforcement Officer. In particular, we note that the latter states that the discussions between the parties took place within Tescos store, so therefore the driver must have followed the Braintree officers into the shop. He has skated over these aspects of the interaction between them all, but on a balance of probability, we prefer the statement of the Enforcement Officer.

We are also mindful that the two potential offences disclosed by our papers are serious ones. The fact that a private hire driver in a private hire car may not pick up a passenger in a street is fundamental, and ignorance of the law is no defence and all UDC licensed drivers receive a copy of the green booklet which explains the law and rules very clearly. The driver admits receiving a copy but says he did not read it properly: this is no excuse.

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. The S54 offence is absolutely fundamental and even the most inexperienced PHV driver should know that they may not pick up a passenger on the street. 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.