Agenda item

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

The Licensing Support Officer gave a summary of the report.

The applicant had applied to the Council for a Private Hire/Hackney Carriage Driver’s licence on 27July 2020 to work for 24/7 Ltd on their contracts.

On the application form the applicant had not declared any convictions.  The enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) certificate showed one conviction.

The applicant now came before members for them to determine whether she was a ‘fit and proper’ person to hold a licence as she had not met the Council’s licensing standards.

The applicant apologised and said that 24/7 had filled in the application on her behalf and had sent in the wrong form.

In response to Members’ questions she confirmed that due to current restrictions the form had been filled in over the phone.  She has been a passenger assistant for 4 years in Central Bedfordshire.  The conviction was 4 years ago and related to her son’s attendance at school.  The applicant confirmed that she had not been told where she would be driving for 24/7 but said she thought they had a contract in Bedfordshire.

The importance of applicants filling out their own applications was discussed.  This and previous mistakes had been caused by 24 x 7 Ltd completing the application on behalf of the applicant.  The Senior Licensing and Compliance Officer explained that the application process was due to become an online system and this would hopefully alleviate the problem.  Members discussed and the Chair agreed to send another letter to 24 x 7 Ltd.

The Chair explained that the Panel would retire to consider the case and would notify the applicant of their decision within 5 working days.

The applicant left the meeting at 11:40 and the Committee retired to make its decision.

DECISION NOTICE –

The application before the Panel today is for the grant of a new joint hackney carriage/PHV driver’s licence to the applicant. We are hearing this case remotely. If her application is successful she has an offer of employment from 24 x 7 Ltd on the school contracts 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 she, the background documents annexed thereto including the application form and the DBS documentation supporting the application. Additional information has been supplied by 24 x 7 Ltd, accepting some responsibility for what has happened. We have also taken into account national and the Council’s policy and have heard from the Case Officer and from the applicant.

On her application form, in answer to question 6 ‘Do you have any unspent convictions?’

The applicant declared she had none.

Part of the application process requires applicants to produce an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service certificate and the applicant’s certificate dated 28 July 2020 shows 1 conviction as follows:

Conviction 1 – Offence – Knowingly failed to cause regular attendance at school of a registered pupil on 06 November 2017.

The applicant therefore does not meet the requirements of clause 2.3 of the Council’s suitability policy which states:-

 ‘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 name or addresses, falsified references) will result in a licence being refused, or if already granted, revoked and may result in prosecution.’

The applicant’s employer 24 x 7 Ltd accepted full responsibility for the error, advising that the fault lay with them insofar as the applicant was apparently unaware of the Court decision against her, arising from the failure of one of her children to attend school. Furthermore, the applicant advised that she had completed two application forms, the later one disclosing the conviction, and that the operator had sent in the wrong form. However, though this is some mitigation, nevertheless it was her application and she is responsible for its accuracy. 

The primary function of this Committee is the protection of the public and if we are in any doubt as to whether an applicant is a safe and suitable person to hold a licence then our duty is clear – we should refuse the application. However, we have heard from the applicant and note what she said about the forms above.  We also note that she has been working as a passenger assistant on school contract runs for some six years: we do have some concerns regarding her uncertainty as to where she would be driving, but understand from officers that 24 x 7 Ltd have a bank of school contract drivers and assign them a route as and when needed.

We were not entirely satisfied with what the applicant told us about the offence. We consider that she did not tell us very much about the surrounding circumstances and we do not have sufficient information as to current prosecution practice In Bedfordshire, where she lives, to decide whether this was an exceptional case or not. However, we do note her enthusiasm and commitment to the work and see no reason why she should not be a safe and suitable person to undertake this role.

Accordingly, we are prepared to grant this application and the applicant will receive her paperwork from the Licensing Department in due course. 

The meeting ended at 11.54am.