Agenda item

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

The Chair introduced the panel.

The Enforcement Officer gave a summary of the report.

Members watched a video of the driver’s dash-cam when the incident took place.

The driver said he thought the other driver was going straight off the roundabout at the previous exit. However he realised as he was going down the slip road that the other driver was still alongside him. He could not brake as he could not tell if there was another vehicle behind him. He had had a licence for 35 years and had never had so much as a parking ticket.

At 1.00, the Committee retired to make its decision.

At 1.15, 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 Mr Hughes’  joint private hire/hackney carriage licence number PH/HC1054 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 Mr Hughes was first licenced by this authority on 14^th March 2016. He drives for 24 x 7 Ltd on school contract work and they have reported the issues before us today to the Council. They have not as yet taken any disciplinary steps against him but in the light of our decision today they are likely to do so.

On 07 May 2019, the Fleet Manager at 24x7 Limited emailed the Council to notify them that they had received a complaint from a van driver who was alleging that the 24x7 Limited driver had run into their vehicle and thereafter failed to stop.   24x7 Limited indicated that they felt the driving by the licensed driver was not acceptable, and they identified the driver. The Council’s Enforcement Officer made further enquiries with 24x7 Limited who supplied the following information by email on 16 July 2019:

The incident took place on the roundabout joining A12 Boreham interchange.

The licensed vehicle involved was registration FJ56 VDP – Citroen Relay.

The speed of the vehicle looks to be 15-20 mph

There was a slight mark on the vehicle which could have been caused by contact, which simply T Cut out. There was no body work damage upon inspection.

The matter did not go through insurance.

No passengers were on board at the time of the incident.

The Enforcement Officer subsequently carried out a telephone interview with the driver on 02 August 2019.   He provided the following account. The incident happened on the Boreham interchange of the A12.  The driver had come from the A138 from Chelmsford;   he had turned right at the second roundabout to head onto the A12 southbound and had moved into the right hand lane as there were no arrows on the road.   He thought this was the correct lane to be in to turn right.

He confirmed that the dashcam was situated on the dashboard in the middle, that he did not see the van in question until it was on the roundabout but that it did not indicate to turn right.

As both vehicles entered the slip road the driver was aware of the van’s presence on his nearside but said he was concentrating on driving correctly.   He was not aware if there were any vehicles behind him as his vision was obscured by the tail lift in his vehicle. He further claimed the van driver was being aggressive down the slip road and by swinging the van to the right towards his vehicle.

The Enforcement Officer asked the driver why he had not let the van pass his vehicle to avoid a collision and the driver said he would not because he was in the right as he had approached the roundabout in the correct lane. He had  not slowed down to let the vehicle pass as it was in his opinion an accelerating lane and that if he did it might have caused an accident with a vehicle behind. At the end of the slip road the van went behind the driver’s vehicle and he admitted to hearing two noises when both of the vehicles collided along the slip road but he continued on his journey. He also admitted that there was a small dent on his vehicle, but that the damage was not sufficient to justify an insurance claim.

The driver then explained that while he was on the A12 the van driver pulled alongside his vehicle and started to use his mobile phone to take pictures of the driver and the vehicle. The driver then came off at the next junction and the van driver followed behind. At this stage the driver did not know where the van driver was heading.

The driver headed towards Danbury and the van driver followed the driver. The van driver did not indicate that the driver should pull over. The driver pulled in the doctor’s surgery and at this point the van driver came over to him and opened the driver’s door as the driver came out the vehicle.   The other driver went chest to chest with the driver and said ‘do you want some?’   He then allegedly demanded the dashcam footage but the driver refused, and explained to the Enforcement Officer that he had refused to engage with the driver because of his aggression.

The van driver then reported the matter to 24x7 Limited by telephone in front of the driver. The passenger assistant was at all material times on board the vehicle but that there were no children on board.

We have read the papers in this case most carefully and we have also viewed the dashcam footage. From this latter we note that the van was not indicating an intention to turn right and that the driver thereof was trying to “push in” to a line of traffic on a single lane slip road.

We have also listened to what the driver has had to say.

On the balance of probabilities we consider that both drivers were equally silly. However, we also accept that rear vision from the driver’s seat would have been limited and that once on the dual carriageway and subsequently in the car park at Danbury the behaviour of the van driver was far worse. We believe that the driver has used the opportunity occasioned by his suspension from his work to reflect upon the situation and we are satisfied that he has learned his lesson and will not be so obstinate in the future. On this occasion we are prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, and he will retain his licence, but we never expect to see him before us again.