Agenda item
REVIEW OF A LICENCE TO DRIVE HACKNEY CARRIAGE AND PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES - DRIVER NO. 15/1594/TXJDR
- Meeting of Licensing Committee, Thursday, 22 September 2016 9.30 am (Item 7.)
- View the background to item 7.
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. 15/1594/TXJDR.
Decision:
RESOLVED that the
allegations made in respect of Driver No. 15/1594/TXJDR had not been proved and no action be taken.
Minutes:
A confidential report by the Head of Planning
and Public Protection (previously circulated) was submitted upon –
(i)
the
suitability of Driver No. 15/1594/TXJDR to hold a licence
to drive hackney carriage and private hire vehicles following accrual of 20 penalty
points under the Council’s penalty point scheme for presenting a licensed
vehicle for test in an unsafe and dangerous condition;
(ii)
details
of the defects noted following presentation of the vehicle for a Compliance/MOT
Test in May 2016 and issuing of 20 penalty points had been included within the
report together with associated witness statements and documentation;
(iii)
the
Driver having appealed the decision to award 20 penalty points on the basis
that he had presented the vehicle for test beforehand at a different garage and
the necessary repair works had been undertaken in accordance with the test
failure and advisory notifications (the two items identified as ‘dangerous’ at
the subsequent Test in May had not been identified during the initial test) – the
Driver having failed to provide documentary evidence of his claims and
following investigations officers refused the appeal, and
(iv)
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 in support of
his case and confirmed receipt of the report and committee procedures.
The Licensing Enforcement Officer outlined
the case as detailed within the report.
The Driver accepted the facts as detailed
within the report apart from the failure to believe that he had presented the
vehicle to the Testing Station beforehand.
He argued that he had taken all reasonable steps to ensure fitness of
the vehicle and detailed the sequence of events leading up to the Compliance/MOT
Test Failure which included (1) refurbishment of the vehicle at a body shop;
(2) presentation of the vehicle at a Testing Station where a pre-inspection was
carried out which identified five defects; (3) submission of the vehicle to a
different garage who repaired the identified defects, and (4) final
presentation of the vehicle for requisite Compliance/MOT Testing which resulted
in the test failure. The Driver provided
evidence of payments made to each of the three separate garages identified in his
submission although evidence of the work carried out and defects identified had
not been provided. Documentary evidence
was also provided in the form of a witness statement confirming collection of
the vehicle from the Testing Station and its submission to a separate garage
for repair work. Finally a letter from
the Driver’s Insurance Broker was submitted in support of his case. In closing his submission the Driver maintained
that he had taken all reasonable steps to ensure compliance and had trusted
professionals at three separate garages who had failed to identify the faults
as listed on the failure notice. He
provide assurances that immediate steps had been taken to repair the faults
once they had been identified and that the vehicle had not been a danger to the
public as it had been out of service during the period leading up to the test
failure. Finally the Driver provided
some general information regarding the management of his business and
maintenance of his licensed vehicles without previous incident.
Members took the opportunity to raise
questions with the Driver in order to further clarify the sequence of events
and action he had taken in response to particular circumstances to ensure that
the vehicle was in a safe and roadworthy condition together with questions
regarding the general management of his business and vehicle maintenance
regime. The Driver also responded to
questions regarding the documentary evidence he had presented in support of his
case and reasoning behind the lack of corroborating evidence in recording the
vehicle inspection and repair work as detailed within his submission to the
committee.
In his final statement the Driver advised
that he had been honest in his submissions and drew members’ attention to the
evidence presented advising that he could provide further witness statements if
required. He believed that he acted
responsibly in this case and had been let down by other professionals.
The committee adjourned to consider the case
and it was –
RESOLVED that the allegation
made in respect of Driver No. 15/1594/TXJDR had not been proved and no action be taken.
The reasons for the Licensing Committee’s
decision were as follows –
Members had carefully considered all the evidence
presented and the submissions by the Driver and his response to questions. The committee considered that the evidence in
this case suggested that the Driver had followed the advice of other
professionals, that he had taken his vehicle for a pre-inspection check, and
had provided details of the work required to a garage for repairs which were
carried out. The Driver had paid for
those services. The vehicle was then
presented for, and subsequently failed, the Compliance/MOT Test. The vehicle was then taken for further
repairs whereupon it subsequently passed the Compliance/MOT Test.
Based on the evidence presented the committee
accepted that the Driver had taken reasonable steps to ensure the fitness of
his vehicle in this case and considered him to be a fit and proper person to
hold a hackney carriage/private hire vehicle driver’s licence. Members also recommended that the 20 penalty
points issued to the Driver be removed forthwith.
The committee’s decision and reasons
therefore were conveyed to the Driver.
The meeting concluded at 11.10 a.m.
Supporting documents:
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 7./1 is restricted
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 7./2 is restricted
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 7./3 is restricted