Agenda item

Determination of a private hire/hackney carriage driver's licence

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

Minutes:

The Enforcement Officer gave a summary of the report. The Council had received an email from the General Manager at ACME who gave an update into their internal investigation into the driver. The driver had offered his resignation on 19 June and was placed on gardening leave until 19 July, when his employment was due to terminate. They took his private hire/hackney carriage driver’s badge and later returned it to the Council. This was due to number of allegations about him when he was a licensed driver.

 

The driver said allegations he had made a parent smell his arm were untrue. He had suggested they smell his arm to demonstrate that their child had left traces of a smell of urine on his arm. This was because the child had fallen asleep on his arm while he was driving.

 

In response to a Member question, the driver confirmed ACME had informed him that the parent had made a complaint about him, but he did not contact the parent after he had been told this.

 

In response to a Member question, the driver said he used to arrive between five and ten minutes before he was due to take the children to school, as had been suggested by his employer. He parked down the road and then used to drive up to the house when he was due to collect the children.

 

In response to a Member question, the driver confirmed the only safeguarding training he had completed was an e-learning course with the Sea Cadets.

 

The driver passed around a character reference from the Christian drop-in group he volunteered with, and a long service medal from the Sea Cadets.

 

The driver said he deeply regretted what had happened. He would not put himself in the same situation again.

 

At 1.00, the Committee retired to make its decision.

 

At 1.20, 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/HC2949  under S61  (1) (b) Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.- any other reasonable cause. The licence is due to expire on 31st July 2021 and the driver was first licenced by this authority on 23 August 2018. He formerly drove for ACME Transport Services but his employment was terminated by them on 19th July 2019 and they returned his badge to the Council. He therefore is not driving at this present moment.

 

We have had the opportunity of reading the officer’s report in this case, a copy of which has been served on the driver. The bundle incorporates correspondence received from a parent and from Powers Hall School. The story begins with an email received from ACME Transport Services on 28th June who as his employer were investigating a number of allegations made by the parents of children being driven by him to and from school. Briefly, the driver would allegedly talk about his earnings from his taxi work in front of staff and children, which is not acceptable. However, of considerably more concern to us is that the mother of a child passenger called Reuben, started to bring the child to school herself as she was concerned about the driver.   She alleged that she wanted the child to sit in the back of the vehicle with a full car seat but that the driver had insisted on putting the child in the front seat using a booster cushion. He had also given nicknames to the children and talked about taking them for a drink and cake at the end of term: further he had actually asked to take both children (Reuben and Riley) out for a drink and cake at the end of term but this was declined by the parents. He had also given a child a breakfast biscuit without the parent’s knowledge.

Additionally, the driver picked up one of the children very early before school, and there were times when the driver had been late bringing the child home, the parent had asked the child about it and they had claimed that the driver had pulled the car over and was swearing. All of these matters had led to ACME suspending him pending a disciplinary investigation; as a result of this he had tendered his resignation and his notice period expiring on 19th July was spent on garden leave.  ACME were concerned enough to take possession of his badge and they have since returned it to the Council.

The driver met with the Enforcement Officer on 18th July. In a lengthy discussion he provided the following background information. He said that he been in the Sea Cadets for 30 years and had reached the rank of Chief Petty Officer.   In his view, over this period he has had a positive impact on children’s lives: Sea Cadets are between 10-18 years of age and some of them had “problems”. He was promoted and took charge of two Sea Cadet units and therefore was responsible for some 25 children and 5-6 members of staff at any given time. He had also been a special constable in London for two and a half years, and still engages in voluntary work around three times a month with children at a drop in centre run by a Christian group.  

The driver explained that he had never undergone any safeguarding training or any other form of instruction in dealing with children when he was employed at ACME, though he had done an e-learning safeguarding course with  the Sea Cadets; ACME had only provided him with a “list” of rules and no other group had provided any formal training.

The driver then told the Officer that licensed driving is his only form of paid employment. With ACME his basic pay was for a 13.75 hour week which he explained was the basic contract: however, because he was transporting two children from Earls Colne he managed to boost his hours to 21 per week. Firstly, the driver was transporting seven children on a regular basis, though this number dropped to four, and he had no Passenger Assistant throughout this time.   He had raised concerns with ACME in the past about this. He confirmed the two of the children upon whom the allegations against him primarily centre (Riley and Reuben) were considerably younger than Sea Cadets, being four and six years old respectively.

In relation to the allegation that he discussed his earnings in front of the children he admits that he may have done this as a passing comment but there was nothing intended by it. He denied using the wording “he’s my biggest earner” although he admits he is an open man which he now realises to be a mistake.

Turning to the specific parental complaints, the driver explained that he had asked Riley’s mother if the child could sit in the front of the vehicle so he didn’t feel all alone with a new driver. He alleged she had been “alright” with him sitting in the front. He then claimed that Reuben initially stayed in the front of the vehicle after getting consent from his mother.   However, it became apparent that the child was falling asleep in the vehicle on the return journey and would fall onto the driver as a result. The driver therefore asked the parent for the appropriate child seat and the mother provided it.

The driver admits that he did give the children nicknames but this was in order to be friendly and to bond with them.   He was aware that the journeys were long for children and did not want them to be bored. He dubbed himself “Dave the Dinosaur” and would call the boys “Riley Piley” and/or “Riley the Rhino” and the other child was “Reubs”.   Other children were called “Peter the Parrot” and “Sophia the Snake”, and he alleged that they found this amusing.

On the allegation of the drink and cake, the driver was asked at the beginning of the term by the children would he take them to McDonalds, and he apparently agreed that he would.   However, he asserted that he never intended to actually do this and said he would consult their parents in the hope that the children would forget. The driver did admit on one particular occasion there were two girls moving school and they wanted to spend a bit of time with him without other children present before they left that particular run; on that occasion the driver had apparently stopped for about 10-15 minutes, when he bought them one cake each, a bag of crisps and a drink.  The driver further confirmed that he did buy the girls chocolate because they left his run because their parents had bought him chocolate. He claimed that he had obtained verbal permission off all the parents prior to this; he thought this would be a nice gesture for the girls and nothing untoward happened. It was wholly inappropriate in our view whether or not there was parental consent.

The driver did admit that he did point out to the mother of Reuben that the child did smell of urine occasionally, but this was as a concern about his welfare; he also admits that he did arrive at the child’s house at about 7.10am as this was on the job sheet given to him from ACME.   He thought this was prudent as the route he would travel along would often get congested. Furthermore, the driver accepted that he did buy a drink for Riley as he would not remove his coat and he was worried the child might dehydrate.   When the child left he gave him some yoghurt biscuits and a good luck card because he had been with the child for a while.   The mother accepted the gesture with no issues. On another occasion, the driver had concerns about a child’s welfare so raised it with a welfare officer at the school.   This was because he believed the child to be being bullied and he recognised this as the driver had been abused as a child: because of this, he would never hurt a child and provided the Enforcement Officer with background information on his own experiences..

The driver then explained that whole episode has caused stress to him.   He accepted that he had made mistakes but everything that he had done was with the best of intentions.   He also asked the Council to note that because of his disability he would struggle to find other employment, and said that he would be prepared to undergo safeguarding training if he was to keep his licence if this satisfied the Council.

 

We have read the papers before us and we have heard from the driver. We have also, at his request, read a document prepared by him by way of rebuttal of the statements of Reuben’s mother and of the Deputy Head of Powers Hall School, and a character reference provided by the Braintree Youth Project Charity.  We have also seen his long service medals awarded in respect of his time served in the Sea Cadets. He has expressed profound regret for what has happened, and says that were he to be given another chance, we would never see him before us again.

 

However, we have enormous concerns. Essex County Council investigated the allegations against the driver, and though they are apparently taking no further action themselves, without doubt they are relying upon the facts that ACME have taken disciplinary action leading to the ending of his employment with them, and that ACME have referred the matter to ourselves. Having read everything before us, we prefer the accounts of Reuben’s mother and of the school, and we believe he did contact after disciplinary action had been taken against him by his employer. All in all, we are very concerned about his naivety and his lack of insight, even after we had announced our decision, and so we find ourselves unable to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The primary function of this Committee is the protection of the public and we note the seriousness of the allegations. Children are among the most vulnerable members of our society and anyone employed to work with them, particularly lone workers, holds a position of great trust.  It is our view that the driver has breached that trust, and as a result we feel that we have no option but to revoke his drivers’ licence with immediate effect in the interest of public safety under S61(1) ( b) Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976  – 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 would ordinarily remain in force, and would continue thereafter until the conclusion of the appellate process, but this does not apply in this case since the revocation is with immediate effect in the interests of public safety. The driver will receive a letter from the Legal Department explaining this.

 

 

The meeting ended 1.30.