Agenda item

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

The Enforcement Officer presented his report to the Panel.

The driver had applied to this authority on 7 June 2018, for the grant of a private hire/hackney carriage driver’s licence. On the application form the driver answered ‘no’ to the question ‘have you ever been refused, or had revoked or suspended, a hackney carriage or private hire driver’s licence?’

Following a meeting with the driver, the Licensing Officer checked the licensing records and found that the driver had a previous licence suspended in 2011; the licence was then revoked by the Licensing and Environmental health Committee in 2012. Furthermore, the driver was found guilty of four offences on 14 August 2012, and found guilty on 9 April 2013 of driving a private hire vehicle without a licence.

Members considered whether the driver was a ‘fit and proper’ person to be issued a licence, in light of his failure to disclose the fact that his licence had previously been suspended and revoked. In addition, he had also failed to disclose the relevant licensing convictions on his application. 

The Chairman read the decision notice.

Decision Notice

The driver’s application dated 7^th June 2018 is for a Private Hire/Hackney Carriage Driver’s licence.  If successful, he has an offer of employment from 24 x 7 Ltd carrying out school contract work.

The Council’s standard application form asks a number of questions about an applicant’s antecedent history. A copy of the form completed by the drivers is before us and he has been provided with a copy prior to the hearing today.            

One of the questions is “Have you ever been refused or had revoked or suspended a hackney carriage or private hire driver’s licence?”

The drivers answered no to this.

Another is, “Have you ever been convicted of ANY offence (including motoring offences) including spent and unspent convictions in any Court or received a police caution?”  

The driver answered that he was convicted of drink driving in 2002 and had a 12 month disqualification which was reduced to 8 months.   He also confirmed that he had been convicted of failing to stop after an accident and he received five penalty points on his licence.

On 13 July 2018, the driver attended a right to work check with the Licensing Officer.   In this meeting the Officer went through the drivers’ paperwork and his application form.   During the meeting he was asked whether he had ever been a licensed driver before, and he stated that he had been previously licensed with Uttlesford.

After the meeting the Licensing Officer checked the department’s records and discovered that the driver previously had had a private hire/hackney carriage driver’s licence that had been revoked by this Committee.   At a subsequent meeting with the officer the driver stated that he remembered attending Committee but that his licence had elapsed and was not revoked, drivers having got caught up in problems between the driver‘s former employer and UDC.   This was noted down on the application form.

In fact, the Council’s records show the driver appeared before the Licensing and Environmental Health Committee on 30 March 2011 and his licence was suspended for 28 days between 2-30 May 2011 because in breach of condition18e of Appendix G of the Council’s Licensing Standards the driver had failed to contact notify the Council within seven days of his conviction for failing to stop and report an accident.   He was invited in on two occasions for a meeting with the former Assistant Chief Executive Legal, but on both occasions did not attend or contact the Council.   Therefore, the former Assistant Chief Executive Legal did refer the drivers’ licence to Committee which resulted in the significant length of the suspension.

On 28 June 2012, the drivers’ private hire/hackney carriage driver’s licence was revoked by the Licensing and Environmental Health Committee.   He did not appeal this decision.   The background to this is set out in detail in the report before us today and the driver has received a copy of this: briefly, however, the matters before the Committee included carrying passengers in unlicensed vehicles, when the journeys had not been booked through a licensed operator, failing to wear his driver’s badge, smoking in the vehicle contrary to the Health Act 2006, possession of cannabis, (for which the drivers received a Police caution), and failing to notify the Council of the caution and of a change of address, contrary to conditions 18a and c of Appendix G of the Licensing Standards for Drivers.

On 14 August 2012, the driver was convicted in his absence for two counts of failing to wear his driver’s badge, one count of driving a PHV not displaying the licence plate, and of the Health Act offence. He was fined £600 in total, ordered to pay costs of £606.80 and a £15 victim surcharge.

Later that year, on 19 November 2012, the driver was caught driving a licensed private hire vehicle without a PHV licence and without insurance.  He twice failed to attend an interview under caution in respect of the offence of driving a private hire vehicle without a licence. He was subsequently convicted of this offence in absentia on 09 April 2013. He was fined £400, ordered to pay costs of £490.92 and a victim surcharge of £40.

The Enforcement Officer attempted to telephone the driver on 09 August 2018, to discuss the reasons why the driver did not disclose this information on his application form but did not get a response. Making a false statement to obtain a licence is an offence under section 57(3) Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, but although the Environmental Health Manager (Protection) has deemed it not in the public interest to prosecute the driver his application was referred to this Committee for determination.

This application has already been adjourned to enable the driver to attend. Both the Enforcement Officer and 24 x 7 Ltd have gone above and beyond the call of duty to make him aware of this hearing,  However, he has not attended, and sadly we cannot help but note that there is a long history of breaches of the Council’s licensing conditions and of relevant offences – failure to wear the driver’s badge, failure to display vehicle plates, carrying passengers knowing the journey has not been lawfully pre-booked, plus of course the Health Act and Misuse of Drugs Act convictions.

Though the driver is a rehabilitated person in respect of these matters since they were punished by way of fines only, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 does not apply to proceedings before us.  Our primary function is the protection of the public and we consider that we have no alternative but to refuse this application since we do not believe the driver to be a fit and proper – safe and suitable – person to hold a licence, given his history of failure to comply with the requirements of one.

There is a right of appeal against this decision which must be exercised within a period of 21 days.  The drivers will receive a letter from the Legal Department explaining this.

The meeting ended at 9.05pm.

Public Speaking 

Doug Perry said the CCTV scheme was in need of urgent review and a consultation was required with all stakeholders; he hoped ULODA would be closely involved.

In relation to the Licensing Review that was being undertaken by the Council, Mr Perry expressed concern regarding the way in which the Council dealt with disqualified drivers. He said he was not happy that a driver, regardless of their offence, would not be granted a licence for three years following disqualification. He hoped the review would give due prominence to the principle of ‘each case to be judged on its own merits’ and that this would be reflected in the new Licensing Policy that was currently being drafted.

Barry Drinkwater also spoke on the Licensing Review. He hoped ULODA would be given an opportunity to comment on the findings of the review before the definitive report was presented to Committee at a later date. He highlighted the example of ‘knowledge testing’ and said it would be inappropriate for drivers who worked on school contracts, often travelling the same journey from home to school each day, to be subject to these new tests. He said he was aware of at least one neighbouring authority which exempted school drivers from such knowledge testing.

Mr Drinkwater congratulated Andy Mahoney, Managing Director of 24x7 ltd, who had been nominated for two Essex Business Excellence Awards (EBEA) – Entrepreneur of the Year and Not-for-Profit Organisation award – and wished him well for the awards ceremony on 2 October. At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr Drinkwater read out the statement Mr Mahoney had provided to the event organisers of the EBEA.

The Chairman thanked both speakers for their statements and congratulated Mr Mahoney on his nominations.

With regards to the CCTV scheme, the Chairman said there would be partnerships between the trade and the Council. If the scheme was to go ahead, 2,800 cars would be outfitted with CCTV. However, the Licensing Policy review was the Council’s priority for the time being.

The Chairman said it would be right for the trade to have their say on the revised Licensing Policy and confirmed ULODA would have an opportunity to comment. In relation to the proposed knowledge testing for school contract drivers, he said it was essential that they too underwent these tests. Safety would always be the principal concern of the Council’s licensing policy and it would be dangerous not to test drivers who were responsible for transporting children.