Agenda item

Determination of a Private Hire/Hackney Carriage Driver's Application

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

Minutes:

The Chair introduced the panel.

 

The Enforcement Officer gave a summary of the report. He confirmed the Group 2 medical certificate was satisfactory.

 

The applicant said he had had a brain injury and had had to be rehabilitated. He had made a good recovery and was now trying to get his life back on track.

 

At 11.50, the Committee retired to make its decision.

 

At 12.20, the Committee returned.

 

The decision was read to the applicant.

 

 

DECISION NOTICE

 

The applicant’s application dated July 2019 is for a Private Hire/Hackney Carriage Driver’s licence.  If successful , he intends to carry out school contract work with 24 x 7 Ltd.

 

The applicant’s  application disclosed a number of matters. We have a copy of this document before us. Question 12 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?’   Nothing was disclosed by the applicant.

 

However, part of the licensing process requires all applicants to undergo an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check and the applicant’s check was dated 25th July 2019.   It revealed the following convictions:

Conviction 1: Dated 07 April 1992, for offences of theft and criminal damage for which he was fined £20 and £40 respectively and ordered to pay costs. This is an offence of dishonesty.

Conviction 2: Dated 05 April 2011, for offences of driving without due care and attention and failing to give name and address after an accident.   He was fined £70, ordered to pay costs and his driving licence was endorsed with 7 penalty points. This matter speaks for itself.

 

He also received a Police caution on 03 February 2015 for an offence of battery, ie the lowest level of assault.

 

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 summary conviction. Given the potential seriousness of the matters revealed by the DBS check, the applicant was interviewed under caution by two Enforcement Officers  on 16th August 2019. He provided the following explanation.

 

The answers on the application form were partially typed in and the applicant said this was done by 24x7 Limited and they posted it to him to finalise and sign before he had to post it back to them. We interpose that this practice causes us some concern. The answer to question 12 had already been answered by 24x7 Limited, but the applicant had not amended it, and he could not explain this failure in interview and he did not address this point before us today.

 

He explained that the convictions in 1992, 2011 and the caution in 2015 were not included on his form because he forgot about them. Apparently he had a serious brain injury in 1995 following an accident, was unconscious for a month, was transferred to a specialist brain injury hospital and remained in hospital for 6 months.   This has affected what he can do, and he has problems with his memory. We specifically asked about his Group 2 medical certificate and we were told that there is a caveat upon it insofar as it is recommended that he has an annual medical examination rather than one at the usual three year interval.

 

The applicant was then specifically asked about the 1992 offence and he had no recollection of this. He did have a vague recollection of the 2011 offence and said that he was driving in icy conditions and was cut up by another vehicle which caused him to crash into a wall.   The other car drove off but the applicant waited a while for the Police to arrive but they didn’t so he called his brother to collect him because it was cold.

 

Finally, in relation to the battery offence he explained that he was on a bus and some females were being noisy and he asked them to be quiet.   One of the girls kicked him as she got off, there was a verbal altercation and the bus driver called the Police.  The applicant maintains there was no physical contact.   He signed a caution just to finalise the matter and we accept this.

 

The applicant therefore does meet the Council’s Licensing Standards for drivers, but because of the nature of the offences officers felt it appropriate to refer the matter to ourselves.  We do have serious concerns.

 

We have read the papers before us and have heard from the applicant. He told us about his accident and his lengthy hospital stay: that he had made good progress and that he wanted to get his life back upon track. We have every sympathy with him, but our concern is as to whether he could safely drive very challenging children. We understand that he holds a clean DVLA licence and that he has passed the Blue Lamp test required as part of the licensing process, but our primary function is the protection of the public and we cannot help but notice that the 2011 conviction arose out of an accident in bad weather and this concerns us greatly. We repeat, children are in a variety of ways the most challenging of passengers: they have an unerring instinct for weakness and they require to be transported by very careful, alert, and imperturbable drivers, and we cannot be certain that the applicant could safely drive rambunctious children in adverse weather conditions.

 

It is with the greatest regret that we refuse this application. Our function is the protection of the public and in this case we find ourselves serving as the ultimate safety net. We cannot be certain that the applicant is a safe and suitable driver, and it is for this reason that we have reached the decision we have. He has a right of appeal to the Magistrates Court against this decision and he will receive a letter from the Legal Department explaining this.