APPLICATION FOR A LICENCE TO DRIVE HACKNEY CARRIAGE AND PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES - APPLICANT NO. 516098
6 APPLICATION FOR A LICENCE TO DRIVE HACKNEY CARRIAGE AND PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES - APPLICANT NO. 516098
To consider a confidential report by the Head of Planning and Public Protection (copy enclosed) seeking members’ determination of an application from Applicant No. 516098.
RESOLVED that the application for a hackney carriage and private hire vehicle driver’s licence from Applicant No. 516098 be refused.
[Councillor Barry Mellor declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item because the applicant was known to him and he left the meeting during consideration of the application.]
A confidential report by the Head of Planning and Public Protection (previously circulated) was submitted upon –
(i) an application having been received from Applicant No. 516098 for a licence to drive hackney carriage and private hire vehicles;
(ii) the Applicant having been previously licensed by the authority and brought before the Licensing Committee on three separate occasions in January 2010, March 2011 and March 2016 resulting in formal warnings on the first two occasions and revocation of his licence on the final occasion;
(iii) referred to the Council’s policy with regard to the relevance of convictions, and
(iv) the Applicant having been invited to the meeting in support of his application and to answer members’ questions thereon.
The Applicant was accompanied by his union representative and confirmed he had received the report and committee procedures.
The Enforcement Officer (HB) introduced the report and facts of the case.
The Applicant’s representative provided some background information relating to the Applicant’s previous history as a licensed driver, highlighting that the council had failed to provide the appropriate formal training as directed by the committee in March 2011 and referred to the subsequent impact and circumstances of the case in 2016 leading to revocation of the Applicant’s licence to drive hackney carriage and private hire vehicles. Previous complaints had been made whilst the Applicant had been undertaking school contract work but there had been no issue when carrying out general mainstream taxi licensing work. Consequently the Applicant submitted that if he was granted a licence he would not undertake school transport work. A reference from the Applicant’s current employer was read out at the meeting highlighting a number of qualities and recommending him for employment.
Members took the opportunity to question the Applicant in order to ascertain whether or not they considered him a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The Applicant clarified that, if a licence was granted, he would not undertake any school contact work but would transport children in the usual course of taxi driving, i.e. pick-ups from the street/rank or pre-booked work. He had grandchildren himself so was aware of their behaviours and submitted that it would be fine provided children were accompanied by an adult to keep them under control and ensure they did not interfere with his driving. He acknowledged that he may be faced with challenging behaviour from youngsters late at night and advised that he would be able to cope having transported children previously with no problems. With regard to training the Applicant confirmed that he had not received training on carrying special needs children but had received the mandatory Child Sexual Exploitation awareness training recently introduced as part of the Council’s application process.
During further questioning of the Applicant and officers it was established that –
· the committee in March 2011 had imposed a condition which required the Applicant to undertake appropriate formal training in respect of carrying special needs children within 28 days. However, it had not been clarified who was responsible for providing that training and whilst some driver training had been organised by the School Transport Section it had not specifically involved carrying special needs children. The Applicant’s representative argued that the onus had been on the council to facilitate that training provision. It was noted that whilst provision of such training may have been limited in 2011 there was now a plethora of training organisations who would be able ... view the full minutes text for item 6