Agenda item

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

The Chair moved Item 7 forward in the proceedings.

The Enforcement Officer gave a summary of the report, which noted the applicant had made a false statement on his application form. He therefore did not meet the Council’s suitability criteria for new drivers. The applicant had attended an interview where he explained that his failure to answer a question correctlywas a genuine mistake and this was because he was in a genuine rush and had his medical to do that day.

Members noted that the answers to questions 10 and 12 on the application form were pre-filled by 24/7 Ltd, and it was incumbent upon applicants to cross ‘no’ out and answer differently if this statement was incorrect.

The applicant said the application day run by 2/7 had been a rush and he had had to leave to do his medical without properly completing the form.

At 10.55, the Panel retired to make its decision.

At 11.15, the Panel returned. The decision was read to the applicant.

DECISION NOTICE –

The application before the Panel today is the applicant’s application for a joint hackney carriage/PHV driver’s licence.  If successful, he has an offer of employment from 24 x 7 Ltd on the school contract side of the business.

We have had the opportunity of reading the officer’s report in this case, a copy of which has been served on the applicant, and we have also seen, as has he, the background documents annexed thereto, including an enhanced DBS Certificate dated 19th August 2019 showing three convictions. The two later ones are related and together they amount to a course of conduct giving us cause for serious concerns.

Conviction 1 on 29 April 1981 was for an offence of theft by an employee where the applicant was fined £150 and made to pay compensation of £22 and costs of £7.

Conviction 2 dated 12 November 1999 was for an offence of driving with excess alcohol where he was fined £300, ordered to pay costs of £55 and disqualified from driving for 36 months which was reduced to 27 months after completing an appropriate course. However, conviction 3 on 10 November 2000 was for an offence of driving whilst disqualified.   An appeal was dismissed and the applicant was imprisoned for 8 weeks, disqualified from driving for a further year and ordered to pay costs of £500.

However, we note the following responses to questions on the applicant’s application form:

Question 10 asks ‘have you ever been disqualified from driving or had your licence revoked?’   The answer given here was ‘no.’

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?’   The answer given was ‘no’ however, two offences of ‘D/D’ and ‘Traffic lights’ were given to this question with no further answers.

In the light of the discrepancy between these answers and the information on his DBS records, the application was invited to attend an Interview under Caution (IUC) on 16 August 2019, which was conducted by two Council Officers. The following things were noted from the IUC:

The answers on the application form were partially typed in and the applicant said this was done by 24x7 Limited. He then explained that his failure to amend the form and answer question 10 correctly was a genuine mistake and this was because he was in a rush and had his medical to do that day.

In relation to the 1981 offence, the applicant said that at the time he was a delivery driver and was delivering some coffee to a customer.   Someone at the shop asked him did he want a case of coffee and stupidly he accepted this. He now regrets it.

The applicant also believed that he was disqualified from driving in the early 1990s for a drink driving related offence, but there is no evidence of that.

For the driving whilst disqualified offence in 2000 he explained that he was a passenger that was being driven by one of his employees around Stansted Airport.   The vehicle was stopped and inspected by the Police, deemed to be in acceptable condition and he was allowed to leave.   A number of weeks later the Police came to his house and accused him of driving: he believed that he had been stitched up by the Police.   He appealed this but lost which led to his imprisonment. It has been explained to him that the fact of the conviction is conclusive and that we cannot go behind this.

At the date of the forms completion, he could not remember the convictions, the dates of them or how far back to go when completing the form. The form is actually quite clear: it requires all convictions, even spent ones, to be disclosed.

We are mindful of the following provisions of the Council’s Licensing Policy.  These are set out in the report so the applicant has the text of them before him.  Section 2.3 deals with ‘any dishonesty by any applicant or other person on the applicant’s behalf which is discovered to have occurred in any part of any application process (e.g. failure to declare convictions, false names or addresses, false references) will result in a licence being refused, or if already granted, revoked and may result in prosecution.’ In this regard, we are aware that making a false statement to obtain a licence is an offence under section 57(3) Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, and this carries a fine of up to £1000 per conviction; and Conviction 1 is for an aggravated offence of dishonesty the theft being from an employer.

We have also been referred to clause 2.10 of the suitability criteria which states ‘where an applicant has more than one conviction showing a pattern or tendency irrespective of time since the convictions, serious consideration will need to be given as to whether they are a safe and suitable person.’ Convictions 2 and 3 are so related.

Finally, we have taken into account para1.6 of the policy which states ‘each case will always be considered on its merits having regard to the policy, and the licensing authority can depart from the policy where it considers it appropriate to do so.’

As a consequence, the matter has been reviewed by the Environmental Health Manager (Commercial) and the Chair of the Licensing and Environmental Health Committee.  It was decided to address the criminal aspects of the matter by way of formal caution and this was administered by the Council’s Legal Department on 23^rd October. However, a decision has been made to refer the application to the Committee for their consideration due to the circumstances of the case.

The primary function of this Committee is the protection of the public and these convictions are for serious matters. Theft from your employer is regarded, rightly, as being a breach of trust attracting additional opprobrium and taken together, the two later convictions are considered to be deeply disquieting. Though we understand the applicant still asserts innocence in respect of the third matter, the fact remains he was convicted, his appeal against conviction was dismissed and he served a custodial sentence.  We are entitled to take those facts as being conclusive, and this is in its origins an offence very relevant to a professional driver.

We have heard from the applicant. He still asserts that he was wrongfully convicted and that there was collusion between the Police and another public official. However, he was advised when he was cautioned on 23^rd October last that a conviction, particularly one following a not guilty trial, is final and this has been repeated today. The penalties he received for these cumulative offences in our view reflect the seriousness with which the Courts regarded them. The lack of insight he has displayed gives us great concern and we cannot believe that anyone would “forget” an aggregate of four years disqualification from driving and a custodial sentence. We accept that a 24 x 7 Ltd mass recruitment day may be chaotic, but we are afraid that this past history is not one that can be overlooked.

Our primary function is the protection of the public and this is always in the forefront of our minds. Unanimously, we cannot consider the applicant to be a safe and suitable person to hold an Uttlesford licence and we therefore refuse this application. We understand that he has other driving work through an agency which, though temporary, is work of a kind for which there is always a demand.

There is a right of appeal against this decision which must be exercised within a period of 21 days. The applicant will receive a letter from the Legal Department explaining this.