Agenda item

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

The drivers in relation to items four and five had not arrived for the meeting. The Chairman therefore took item six as the next item.

The Chairman introduced the Panel and explained procedure to the driver.

The Panel considered the Enforcement Officer’s report.

Members were reminded that standard 11 of the Council’s licensing standards for drivers’ states, ‘not to have had a hackney carriage and/or private hire driver’s licence revoked within the last three years.’ The driver would therefore not have met the Council’s licensing standards at the time of his application.

Members were asked to consider whether the driver remained a fit and proper person in light of his revocation from Watford Borough Council, which had occurred within the last three years, and the false statement used to obtain a licence from this authority.

The driver said he had made a mistake; he had driven taxis for the past thirteen years and had not received any complaints. He had made a false statement on his application as he was desperate for work and was providing for a disabled son and his disabled mother. He said he had only used cannabis for medicinal purposes following complications of a hair transplant he had undertaken in Turkey. He tabled a letter from his GP stating that he did not use drugs for recreational purposes and that the results of his drug tests were clear. He apologised to the panel for his mistake.

In response to a question from the Chairman, the driver said he had not re-applied for a licence at Watford Borough Council but he had been told he could reapply. He said he had not reapplied as the competition in Watford was high and working there would not be as lucrative as it had been previously. He was currently working for Luckett’s of Watford Ltd on school contract work and produced a character reference from his employer for the panel. The driver had also applied for a private hire driver’s licence with Transport for London, although this had yet to be granted.

At 11.10am, the panel retired to make its decision.

At 11.30am, the panel returned.

The Chairman read out the decision.

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/HC2301 dated 26^th September 2017, 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 August 2020. We understand he currently works for Lucketts of Watford on school contract work.

On 18 June 2018, the Council received an email from the Business Compliance Officer at Watford Borough Council, advising us under S115 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 that the driver had had a hackney carriage licence revoked with immediate effect on 21 July 2017.

The file was immediately referred to the Enforcement Officer and Watford Council (WBC) confirmed that the driver held a dual driver’s licence from 25 August 2005 until it was revoked on 21 July 2017.  

The reason was that on 20 July 2017, the driver was issued with a warning by Police for possession of a class B controlled substance.  The revocation letter from Watford Borough Council contained the following reason for the revocation:

‘In accordance with Watford Borough Council’s Guidelines on the issuing of licences, sections 1.11 and 10.7 your licence is revoked with immediate effect on grounds of risk to public safety following your warning for possession of class B cannabis received from Police on 20^th July 2017 in Market Street, Watford.’

The driver did not appeal this decision.

Standard 11 of Appendix A of UDC’s Licensing Standards for Drivers states:_

 ‘Not to have had a hackney carriage and/or private hire driver’s licence revoked within the last three years.’  

The driver would therefore, not meet the Council’s licensing standards until 22 July 2020, and we are mindful question 4 of UDC’s application form specifically asks ‘Have you ever been refused or had revoked or suspended a hackney carriage or private hire driver’s licence?’  

The driver answered no to this.

Wilfully or recklessly making a false statement to obtain a licence is an offence under section 57(3) Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. The limitation period for this offence has expired and hence the driver is only before us today under section 61(1)(b).

The driver attended the Council Offices, Saffron Walden for an informal meeting with the Enforcement Officer on 25 July 2018. The driver was asked if he remembered having his licence revoked by Watford Borough Council and he confirmed that he did.   He could not afford to appeal. The driver explained that prior to the offence he had received treatment in Turkey for a hair transplant. This caused him to have difficulties sleeping so he used cannabis for medicinal purposes at home to help him sleep. The driver was aware that cannabis was illegal.

In relation to the offence he explained that on the date in question he was at the rank in Watford and a male approached his taxi and attempted to sell him cannabis.  The driver explained that he refused to buy any.   The man then threw his bag containing cannabis into the vehicle but the driver threw it back. However, the man was under surveillance by the Police and searched the driver’s vehicle, where they found two old cannabis cigarettes.  This resulted in the warning.

The driver was shown his application form and he confirmed that he completed it.   He was asked why he failed to disclose the revocation of his previous licence by Watford Borough Council and he explained that he was desperate and needed to provide for his family.   He also stated that he did not read the declaration on the rear of the application form.  The driver also admitted that he did not notify Lucketts of Watford of the cannabis warning when he applied to them.   He has also applied to TFL for a private hire driver’s licence and admitted that he did not disclose the revocation to them upon application.  

We have read the papers before us and we have listened to what the driver has had to tell us this morning. We have also read a letter from his doctor dated 1^st March 2018 and one from Lucketts dated 13^th August 2018.

However, what we have been told today reveals a course of deliberately  dishonest actions by the driver in applying to both this Council  and TfL for licences knowing that neither authority would grant such a licence if in possession of the full facts. TfL are aware he appears before us today, and they will receive a copy of this decision notice. Furthermore, though the Police did not prosecute under the Misuse of Drugs Act, on his own admission the driver is a habitual user of drugs and this substance abuse impacts upon driving ability.

The primary function of this Committee is the protection of the public and we take an extremely serious view of this case. We therefore consider that we have no alternative but to revoke the driver’s licence under S61 (b) of the 1976 Act with immediate effect as he is no longer a fit and proper person to hold it. We take this view because of the risk habitual drug use poses to the safety of the public, to say nothing of his dishonest applications to both UDC and TfL.

There is a right of appeal against this decision which must be exercised within a period of 21 days and during this period the licence normally remains in force.  However, since we have revoked the licence with immediate effect on public safety grounds, this period of grace does not apply. The driver will receive a letter from the Legal Department explaining this.