REVIEW OF A LICENCE TO DRIVE HACKNEY CARRIAGE AND PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES - DRIVER NO. 15/1124/TXJDR
4 REVIEW OF A LICENCE TO DRIVE HACKNEY CARRIAGE AND PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES - DRIVER NO. 15/1124/TXJDR
To consider a confidential report by the Head of Planning and Public Protection (copy enclosed) seeking members’ review of a licence to drive hackney carriage and private hire vehicles in respect of Driver No. 15/1124/TXJDR.
- Restricted enclosure 3 , View reasons restricted (4/2)
- Restricted enclosure 4 , View reasons restricted (4/3)
RESOLVED that the hackney carriage and private hire vehicle driver’s licence issued to Driver No. 15/1124/TXJDR be revoked on public safety grounds with immediate effect.
A confidential report by the Head of Planning and Public Protection (previously circulated) was submitted upon –
(i) the suitability of Driver No. 15/1124/TXJDR to hold a licence to drive hackney carriage and private hire vehicles following accrual of 40 penalty points under the Council’s penalty point scheme for twice presenting a licensed vehicle for test in an unsafe and dangerous condition;
(ii) the Driver having previously appeared before the Licensing Committee on 10 June 2015 following accrual of 20 penalty points for presenting a licensed vehicle for test in an unsafe and dangerous condition which had resulted in a two week suspension;
(iii) details of the defects noted following presentation of the vehicle for a Compliance/MOT Test in April 2016 and the issue of a further 20 penalty points had been included within the report together with associated witness statements and documentation;
(iv) the Driver having submitted documentary evidence in support of his licence review including an MOT Test/Compliance Certificate for the vehicle dated 19 May 2016 together with a letter of appeal against the penalty points (the appeal having been subsequently dismissed by officers), and
(v) the Driver having been invited to attend the meeting in support of his licence review and to answer members’ questions thereon.
The Driver was in attendance and accompanied by his Union Representative. The Union Representative confirmed receipt of the report and committee procedures.
The Licensing Enforcement Officer (LEO) outlined the case as detailed within the report. Whilst the vehicle had not been presented for retest at the time of writing the report members were advised that the vehicle had subsequently passed an MOT/Compliance Test on 19 May 2016.
The Union Representative presented the Driver’s case arguing that he had actively sought guidance and assurance regarding the vehicle’s condition. The vehicle had been presented for MOT testing on 4 April 2016 and repair work had been carried out which had resulted in an MOT Certificate being issued on 13 April 2016. The vehicle had subsequently failed the MOT and Compliance Test at the Council’s Designated Testing Station on 14 April 2016 with a clear difference of opinion between the two vehicle examiners. The Union Representative sought to highlight a number of inconsistencies in the report and put questions to the LEO in that regard. In response the LEO clarified the extent of his involvement in the investigation and his reliance on the documentary evidence and statement provided by the Compliance Engineer who had carried out the test on 14 April 2016 which demonstrated that the vehicle had been presented for test in an unsafe, dangerous and poor condition. With regard to the Driver’s conduct the Union Representative submitted that he had acted in good faith when presenting the vehicle for inspection on 14 April 2016 given that it had passed an MOT Test the previous day. The Driver had submitted a number of receipts and invoices (circulated at the meeting) to demonstrate the vehicle repairs which had been carried out. Reference was also made to a number of defects which had not been dealt with consistently during previous testing regimes. The differences between the mechanical fitness as evidenced by the MOT Test and the requirements of the Compliance Test were also highlighted. Concerns were also expressed by the Union Representative regarding the terminology used within the report when considering whether the Driver was fit and proper to hold a licence. Members clarified the reasoning behind the use of the standard phrase when determining fitness. In closing his submission the Union Representative argued that the Driver had taken reasonable steps to ensure that ... view the full minutes text for item 4