Agenda item

To determine a Private Hire/Hackney Carriage Driver's application.

The Enforcement Officer gave a summary of the report.

The applicant met the Council’s licensing standards for drivers, however the Environmental Health Manager Protection felt it was necessary to refer the application to Committee. This was due to the applicant’s difficulty in reading and writing in English and because he had received a Council caution for a licensing offence.

This caution was in relation to making a false statement on the following question: have you ever been convicted of any offence (including motoring offences) including spent and unspent convictions in any Court or received a police caution?

On attending an interview with the Enforcement Office, the applicant said his nephew had filled in the application form for him because his written English was not good. His nephew had written ‘no’, whereas the correct answer should have been ‘yes’. The answers on the application form also failed to disclose three other penalty points. At interview the applicant said he had believed these three points had already dropped off.

The driver said he had made mistakes but was surprised this issue was confronting him now.

At 12.00, the Committee retired to make its decision.

At 12.10, the Committee returned.

The decision was read to the applicant.

DECISION NOTICE

The applicant’s application dated 8^th January 2019 is for a Private Hire/Hackney Carriage Driver’s licence.  If successful , he intends to carry out school contract work with M & S Ahmed Srv Ltd.

The applicant’s application disclosed a number of matters. We have a copy of this document before us.

Question 4 asks ‘Have you ever been refused or had revoked or suspended a hackney carriage or private hire driver’s licence?’   The answer given was ‘yes.’ This was expanded by the statement -  “dangerous driving – Stevenage Borough Council.   Revoked by Stevenage in 2005”.’

Question 10 asks ‘Have you ever been disqualified from driving or had your licence revoked?.’   The answer given here was ‘yes.’

Question 11 asks ‘Has your licence ever been endorsed for a fixed penalty offence within the last 4 years?’   The answer given was ‘yes SP30 4 points £80 fine 12/05/2018’.  

However, the applicant’s DVLA Drivercheck, also before us and dated 05 February 2019 shows that he also has another fixed penalty notice, an SP30 offence for which he was convicted on 07 June 2016 and was given three penalty points.

Question 12 then asks ‘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 answer given to this question was ‘no.’

Again, however, his enhanced DBS check, also included within our papers, shows two matters, namely:-

Conviction 1 dated 12 August 2005, was for an offence of dangerous driving on 15 January 2005. The applicant was fined £250 and disqualified from driving for 12 months;  his licence was endorsed and he was ordered to pay costs of £200.

Conviction 2 dated 24 May 2005 was for two offences: a) using a vehicle whilst uninsured and b) driving whilst disqualified on 08 December 2005.   His DBS appears to show that he was given a community order comprised of  9 months supervision, a requirement to undertake basic skills training for 30 days and 8 penalty points for the driving whilst uninsured offence.   For the driving whilst disqualified matter, the applicant was subject to duplicate supervision and skills training requirements, ordered to pay costs of £100 and again, his driving licence was endorsed.

We are aware that making a false statement to obtain a licence is an offence under S57(3) of the 1976 Act and that this offence carries a fine of up to £1000 upon conviction. The applicant was interviewed under caution in respect of this matter on 22^nd February 2019 and on that occasion the following matters were raised by him.

The applicant stated that his nephew completed the application form in front of him.   His nephew did this because he can’t read and write in English very well.   He later conceded  that he could only read a little bit of English and as a result,  his nephew had read him the questions and he gave him the answer. He was noted to read the declaration at the bottom of the application form with difficulty.

The applicant then confirmed that his nephew had written the details of the disqualification on the application form. He then explained the reason for the second conviction was because his brother had been involved in an accident and he drove to the scene in his brother’s car but the police caught him.

When he was asked why the response to question 12 was ‘no’ the applicant said it should not have been ‘no’ but could not remember if his nephew had asked him this question: when the applicant was asked why he did not disclose the other three penalty points he believed that he only had four and thought that the others had dropped off as it was over three years from the offence not the date of conviction.

Finally, applicant stated that he did not check the application form as he trusted his nephew to complete it correctly.

It was decided to deal with the matter by way of formal caution and this was administered on 26^th March. The applicant therefore does meet the Council’s Licensing Standards for drivers, but because of his poor English officers felt it appropriate to refer the matter to ourselves.  We have read the papers before us and have heard from the applicant. We note that if his application is successful he would be carrying out school contract work.  We are very concerned that he might be unable to read any instructions in respect of the care of a disabled child in emergencies: and similarly, a vulnerable child might struggle to understand his spoken English. This is a risk we cannot take.

Our function is the protection of the public and we have concerns that the applicant’s inadequate grasp of the English language might put people at risk. We therefore refuse this application. The applicant has a right of appeal to the Magistrates Court against this decision and he will receive a letter from the Legal Department explaining this.