Agenda item

To determine a private hire/hackney carriage drivers licence.

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

The Enforcement Officer gave a summary of the report. The driver had carried out a job from Stansted Airport to Hayes. His operator received a complaint about his conduct alleging the following:

·         The driver was swaying from lane to lane and kept closing his eyes.

·         He moved his phone from his lap to the dash of the car. He had his earphones in, was watching a film and kept constantly looking away from the screen.

·         He was speeding.

A speed check by the operator showed the driver travelling over 70mph for a period of the journey, at one point reaching 85mph. Pictures supplied by the complainants showed a phone on the driver’s dashboard. In light of the complaint, Members were asked to consider the driver’s licence.

The driver said his two passengers were frustrated after a long flight which they had found distressing, and had missed their pre-booked taxi because the flight had been delayed. One of the passengers agreed to pay £143.59 for the journey, which was significantly more than the price of their pre-booked taxi, and which the other passenger believed to be too much. They had been arguing with each other in the taxi, which the driver had found distracting.

The driver said he had his phone in his lap, and then moved it to the dash, because he was using it as a SatNav. His phone holder had broken and he knew he would be able to obtain a new one from his operator when he returned to the office in the morning. He had not been swaying from side to side.

The driver said he had been a taxi driver for many years and had never had a complaint. Bad driving was not a habit of his. He could only assume the passengers had been upset about the price they were charged by the operator for a taxi.

In response to a Member question, the driver said he only had one earphone in.

In response to a Member question, the driver said drivers tended not to rely on the PDAs they were given for navigation because they were not very reliable.

B Drinkwater said the driver had taken on board the lessons he had learnt from this experience.

At 14.30 the Committee retired to make its decision.

At 15.20 the Committee returned.

The Chairman read the decision to the driver.

DECISION NOTICE:

The application before the Panel today is for the suspension or revocation of the driver’s  joint private hire/hackney carriage licence number PH/HC0957 dated 17^th June 2015 in accordance with S61  (1) (b) Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.- any other reasonable cause. The licence is due to expire on 31^st May 2019.  He is currently employed by 24 x 7Ltd as an airport driver and the complaint before us was referred to the Council by them.

On 11^th September 2018, the driver accepted a journey from Stansted Airport to Hayes lasting from 01.54 hours to 03.18 hours. A complaint was made to 24x7 Limited by the passenger that during that journey

·         That they were charged £143.50 for the journey, this is not a concern for the Council as private hire operators can charge what they want and it is a private arrangement between the customer and operator.

·         They alleged that when they were on the motorway the driver was swaying from lane to lane and when they looked at him they said he kept closing his eyes.

·         He then allegedly moved his phone from his lap on to the dash of the car.   The complainant also stated that he had his earphones in and was watching a film and kept constantly looking away from the motorway to look at the screen; photographs were subsequently supplied showing the mobile phone resting upon the dashboard..

·         They also reported that he was speeding whilst they were on board.

24 x 7 Ltd are able to track vehicle speed and  the driver was noted to be driving at well above the 70mph speed limit for motorways, at one point reaching a speed of 85mph. When 24 x 7 raised the matter with him, the driver told them that his phone was resting on his dashboard because his holder was broken and they had now issued him with a new PDA holder.   He also told them that he was unaware of the speed he was doing as his phone/PDA was covering the speedometer, he assured them that he would stick to the speed limits in future.   24x7 Limited also pointed out that the driver had been with them since June 2015 and in that time had an exemplary record so far as they were aware. However, UDC’s records show that on 26 May 2016, the driver had his private hire/hackney carriage driver’s licence suspended for eight days by the former Assistant Chief Executive-Legal as he breached his conditions of licence, because he did not notify the Council in writing of two speeding offences. These offences were revealed on the DVLA Drivercheck carried out on 2^nd January 2019. 

The Enforcement Officer met the driver for a meeting on 17 December 2018, to discuss the journey.

·         The driver told the Officer that he was normally a night driver and remembered this journey.

·         The driver confirmed that the vehicle he was driving did have cruise control but he never used it.

·         He stated that he uses his phone as a sat-nav, but on that occasion his phone holder which the company issued was broken.

·         He claimed that his phone was on the dashboard, and was therefore covering the speed so he was unable to read the speedometer.

·         The driver claimed that the two female passengers were arguing with each other due to the cost of the journey and because they lost each other in the terminal.

·         He denied watching a film on his phone and denied that he was going from lane to lane.   He did however, admitted using headphones as he claimed that he used them to listen to the sat-nav.

·         The driver stated that the passengers did not say anything to him about him speeding or allegedly using a mobile phone etc.

·         He did explain that 24x7 Limited did offer a refund of half the journey which the driver paid for.

After the Officer spoke to the driver, the Officer inspected the private hire vehicle that the driver used for the journey and looked around the dashboard area.   The speedometer was read by a dial on the right hand side and would not have been covered up by the telephone that was on his dashboard.

Our attention has been drawn to the MoJ Speeding (revised 2017) Sentencing Guidelines. If he were before the Courts and were proved to have been travelling at 85mph in a 70mph zone, he would expect to incur a Band A fine (the lowest band fine) and three penalty points.   However, there are aggravating factors which would incur a heavier penalty from the Courts and one of them is ‘driving for hire or reward.’ We also note the findings of the Enforcement Officer made upon his inspection of the vehicle. 

It is important to note that this Committee is not a Court and this information is provided for members to use as a guide only in their decision making.

We have read the papers before us and we have heard from the driver and the mitigation on his behalf advanced by Mr Drinkwater. We have also read the papers before us and have studied colour copies of the photographs included in the papers. We do not accept that these photographs were taken with a flash – there is no reflection of the flashlight shown therein – and we also observe that the driver appears to have a dual role with 24 x 7 Ltd – they say “…has stepped up to offer Duty Manager cover on our booking desk as and when required …”.

We are not a criminal Court and our findings are made on a balance of probabilities. We are disturbed to note that the driver is seeking to blame the two female passengers for everything that happened that night and repeatedly tried to direct us back to the question of the disputed fare, which is not a matter for this Committee. On the basis of the complainant’s email, these two ladies were vulnerable: the detail she provides is of itself persuasive and we find that on balance the driver was not giving driving his full attention.

Our attention has been drawn to the Government’s Sentencing Guidelines for speeding offences. Though we are not bound by them, we note that this offence is at the lower end of the scale but is aggravated by the fact that the driver was driving for reward. Furthermore we note the location of the mobile phone on the dashboard from the photographs provided by the customer and the observation by the customer that a) he was wearing earphones, as he admits,  and b) did not appear to be giving driving his full attention.

Paragraph 8 of Appendix G to the Council’s Licensing Standards for Drivers requires drivers to

“Take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of passengers”

The primary function of this Committee is to ensure the safety of members of the travelling public.  In driving at the speed he was recorded as so doing, the driver clearly ignored this obligation, and though the Police have not become involved he was nevertheless committing a criminal  offence and therefore in the interests of the proper protection of the public  we consider that  we have no alternative but to revoke the driver  licence with immediate effect under S61 (b) of the 1976 Act as he is no longer a fit and proper person to hold it.

There is a right of appeal against this decision which must be exercised within a period of 21 days.  Normally the licence continues in being pending the resolution of the appellate process, but since the revocation was immediate on the grounds of public safety this will not apply. The driver will receive a letter from the Legal Department explaining this.