Agenda item

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

The Chair bought items 6 and 7 forward in proceedings. These items were dealt with in tandem.

The Enforcement Officer gave a summary of the report.

On 13 May 2019, the driver emailed the licensing department to notify them that he had moved address. He also notified them that he had made a mistake with temporary cover which resulted in him receiving six penalty points on his licence when he bought the policy he put the wrong date on the temporary cover. He was stopped by the Police who seized the vehicle, and the driver had to pay a fixed penalty notice of £300 and received six penalty points on his licence. Officer asked the driver if he had notified his insurance company and the driver said that he had not but would tell them upon renewal of his current policy.

Uttlesford District Council’s suitability policy includes criteria that applicants should meet if they wish to be licensed by Uttlesford District Council, including not having committed an offence of driving without insurance.

The driver’s employer said the driver had accidentally clicked on the wrong date on an app when filling in the application for temporary cover. He would never knowingly drive a vehicle without insurance. He was an excellent driver who had received many compliments.

In response to a Member question, the driver said he had not informed the Council of receiving the penalty points within 7 working days because he had been moving and it had been a stressful time. He had informed his insurer of receiving the penalty points after the Enforcement Officer had prompted him to do so.

At 10.45, the Committee retired to make its decision.

At 11.25, the Committee returned.

The decision was read 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/HC0706 under S61  (1) (b) Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.- any other reasonable cause. The licence is due to expire on 28^th February 2022 and the driver was first licenced by this authority on 5^th March 2015. He also holds a private hire vehicle lice reference no PHV 1595 (See post) and drives for STS Taxis Ltd a private hire operator. His line manager accompanied him to the hearing this morning and spoke in support of him.

We have had the opportunity of reading the officer’s report in this case, a copy of which has been served on the driver, and we have also seen, as has he, the background documents annexed thereto, including a DVLA DriverCheck dated 13th May 2019, the Council’s Licensing Standards, some email correspondence, and the notes of a telephone discussion the driver had with the Enforcement Officer on 31^st May 2019.

On 13^th May 2019 the Licensing Department received an email from the driver advising them of a) a change of residential address, and that b)due to an administrative error on his part he had received six penalty points on his DVLA licence. A routine DVLA DriverCheck carried out on that day showed that he committed an IN10 offence of driving whilst uninsured on 5^th February 2018 for which he received the  six penalty points. He therefore no longer meets the Council’s Licensing Standards for drivers.

Uttlesford District Council’s suitability policy outlines the criteria that applicants should meet if they wished to be licensed by Uttlesford District Council.   Our  attention has been drawn to the ‘other motoring offences’ section 2.29 which reads ‘a major traffic or vehicle related offence is one which is not covered above and also any offence which resulted in injury to any person or damage to any property (including vehicles).   It also includes driving without insurance or any offence connected with motor insurance.   Where an applicant has a conviction for a major traffic offence or similar offence, a licence will not be granted until at least 7 years have elapsed since the completion of any sentence imposed.’   Therefore the driver will not meet the Councils licensing standards until 6^th February 2026.

The driver was spoken to by the Enforcement Officer on 31^st May 2019 regarding the DVLA check and the consequences of the information contained therein, namely that he no longer met the licensing standards for drivers.  

The driver explained to the Officer that he had moved house earlier in the year and he had had to move his personal car from the driveway of his old home to his new address.   As a result he obtained temporary cover on the insurance as the vehicle had no insurance, tax or MOT and he was therefore taking it the garage for the MOT.  

The cover was a one day policy from Aviva insurance.  

However, he explained to the Enforcement Officer that when he bought the policy had done so via an app on a mobile device and had accidentally put the wrong date upon which he required the temporary cover note to be in force for   Unfortunately, he was stopped by the Police who seized the vehicle as uninsured, and the driver had to pay a fixed penalty notice of £300 and received six penalty points on his licence.  He later reclaimed the vehicle from the Police.   The Enforcement Officer asked the driver if he had notified his insurance company of these matters, and the driver said that he had not but would tell them upon renewal of his current policy.

We have read the papers before us and we have heard from the driver and his manager. The latter explained to us that the driver had purchased a one day DayInsure insurance policy in order to move his private car between addresses via an MOT testing station but in completing the application on a mobile app had inadvertently clicked upon the wrong date which meant the cover was also incorrectly issued. The Police apparently missed this error on being shown the screen and so did not appreciate that an offence had in fact been committed until they checked the position with the insurance company. We were told that at all material times the PHV was insured.

However, our attention has been drawn to Clause 2.41 of the Council’s policy which cross references Clause 2.29 set out above and adds that as a matter of trust and confidence revocation should generally follow any of the matters set out therein. WE further understand that the insurers of the Zafira were not informed of the matter until the Enforcement Officer prompted the driver when the vehicle licence renewal was submitted in mid June. This compounds the offence.

The primary function of this Committee is the protection of the public and we note the seriousness of the offence. Drivers are required to have insurance for good reason and though there are provisions in place to ensure that victims of uninsured drivers are compensated, it does mean there are additional procedural steps that such people have to take if there is an accident, and the compensation scheme relates to personal injury only. Mercifully there was no accident,  but the failure to notify the PHV insurer until prompted .compounds the error and we therefore feel that it is this that has tipped the balance in favour of revocation under S61 (1) (b) of the 1976 Act of the driver’s drivers’ licence – any other reasonable cause.

There is a right of appeal against this decision which must be exercised within a period of 21 days. During that period the licence remains in force and thereafter until the conclusion of the appellate process. The driver will receive a letter from the Legal Department explaining this.

In the light of this decision the question of the driver’s Vauxhall Zafira motor vehicle reg HY09 ORA has to be considered. The driver produced all his relevant paperwork (insurance, MOT, compliance test) and paid his renewal fee for an annual licence to the Council on 11 June 2019. The Enforcement Officer contacted the driver when the paperwork was received and asked to see the schedule of cover for the motor insurance.   The driver contacted the insurance company and notified them of the fixed penalty notice for the insurance offence. Otherwise, he would have left notification to the policy renewal date, if at all, rendering it voidable.

As a matter of law, only a licensed driver may drive a licensed vehicle. In the light of the decision we have made regarding the driver’s driver’s licence then unless and until he appeals this decision he will be unable to drive the vehicle for social, domestic and pleasure purposes, as it remains a licensed vehicle. We appreciate that the existing licence expires on Sunday and that a new licence, if granted, would be without prejudice to the result of any appellate process initiated by the driver so we therefore revoke the existing vehicle licence and leave the question of his application for a new one to be dealt with upon its merits.