Agenda, decisions and draft minutes
PDF 98 KBVenue: Conference Room 1a, County Hall, Ruthin
Contact: Committee Administrator (KEJ) Email: democratic@denbighshire.gov.uk
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES Decision: Councillors Stuart Davies, Merfyn Parry, Pete Prendergast and Huw Williams Minutes: Councillors Stuart Davies, Merfyn Parry, Pete Prendergast and Huw Williams |
|
|
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS Members to declare any personal or prejudicial interests in any business identified to be considered at this meeting. Decision: No declarations of personal or prejudicial interest had been raised. Minutes: No declarations of personal or prejudicial interest had been raised. |
|
|
URGENT MATTERS AS AGREED BY THE CHAIR Notice of items which, in the opinion of the Chair, should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972. Decision: No urgent matters had been raised. Minutes: No urgent matters had been raised. |
|
|
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC RESOLVED that
under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the Press and Public be
excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds
that it would involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in
Paragraphs 12 and 13 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A of the Act. |
|
|
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. Additional documents:
Decision: 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. Minutes: 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. |