Agenda item

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

The Enforcement Officer gave a summary of the report. The applicant had failed to disclose a conviction for assault on his application form, and as such did not meet the criteria of the Council’s policy on suitability of new drivers. The applicant hadthought that the conviction for theft was a suspended sentence and did not realise it was a conviction. The applicant had explained that he had an abcess on his brain approximately 2 years ago which has led to memory losses. He had also thought that he would only need to disclose convictions over 5 years ago.

In response to a Member question, the applicant said he thought the conviction was a warning that he would be prosecuted if a similar offence occurred. He had pleaded not guilty and the owners of the stolen camera were surprised the case had made it as far as court.

At 13.15, the Panel retired to make its decision.

At 13.35, 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 21st August 2019 showing a conviction for an offence of dishonesty, namely an offence of theft from a dwelling on 4^th March 2013, for which the applicant was convicted on 25th November of that year. He received a 12 month conditional discharge, and was ordered to pay compensation of £25, costs of £350 and a victim surcharge.

However, question 12 of the application form 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’.

In the light of the discrepancy between this and the information on his DBS records, the applicant was interviewed under caution (IUC) on 18^th September 2019 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. The applicant explained that he did not realise the nature of his conviction, believing it was a type of warning, and thought that only an immediate custodial sentence was a conviction.   He then explained that he had an abcess on his brain approximately 2 years ago which has led to memory losses: he also did not realise that he also needed to disclose convictions over 5 years ago.

In relation to the offence he said that he had been renting a single room in a house.   When the owners of the house went on holiday he went to stay with his girlfriend and returned once to get a change of clothes.   A camera was stolen during the owner’s holiday and their son was still at the house during this time:  however, the applicant got blamed and then went to Court. He is now a part-time steward and is hoping to get his SIA licence.  

The applicant said that his long term memory was affected after the illness but it is returning.

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.

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 this morning. 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 this conviction is for a serious matter.  The allegation is that he stole from the people in whose house he was living.

We have heard from the applicant and have to say that this is the third case before us today in which the administrative failures of 24 x 7 Ltd have played a part. This is not acceptable.

We have listened to what he has to say and have seen his Group 2 medical certificate. We note that he is fully recovered from his abscess and has been passed as being fit and well. We also note that his SIA licence application has been successful.

The applicant does exhibit a certain naivety and although the payments that he was ordered to make by the Courts were substantial, we can nevertheless understand why he believed that he had not been convicted. The nature of a conditional discharge is not altogether easy to understand. We are therefore prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and therefore grant this application.  We do not, however, expect to see him before us ever again.