Agenda item

To consider a confidential report by the Head of Planning, Public Protection and Countryside Services (copy enclosed) seeking members’ determination of an application to drive hackney carriage and private hire vehicles from Applicant No. 554278.

10.45 am

RESOLVED that the application for a hackney carriage and private hire vehicle driver’s licence from Applicant No. 557452 be refused.

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. 557452 for a licence to drive hackney carriage and private hire vehicles;

 

(ii)            the Applicant having previously held a licence to drive hackney carriage and private hire vehicles which had subsequently been revoked in May 2021 following an accumulation of motoring convictions for speeding and resultant disqualification from driving for a period of six months under the totting up of points procedures (TT99);

 

(iii)          the application having been referred to the Licensing Committee on 2 March 2022 for determination and following consideration of all the evidence presented, including the Applicant’s submission and response to questions, the Committee had resolved to grant the application subject to all other necessary checks associated with the application being satisfactory;

 

(iv)          subsequent checks having revealed that two of the speeding offences had occurred in a licensed taxi, contrary to the Applicant’s account the speeding convictions had been obtained solely whilst driving a motorbike through leisure pursuits and not in a professional capacity as a licensed driver;

 

(v)           the matter having been referred back to the Licensing Committee in light of the new information which called into question the honesty of the Applicant;

 

(vi)          the Council’s policy with regard to the suitability of Applicants and options available to the Committee when considering the application, and

 

(vii)         the Applicant having been invited to attend the meeting in support of their application and to answer members’ questions thereon.

 

The Applicant confirmed he had received the report and committee procedures.

 

The Public Protection Business Manager submitted the report and facts of the case.

 

The Applicant apologised for the incorrect information provided at the last meeting.  He had contacted the DLVA to obtain the necessary information but had been advised that it was no longer available and so he had answered to the best of his knowledge.  He had been unaware that the information could have been obtained from the Magistrates Court.  He had a number of different vehicles and it was difficult to know in which vehicle the convictions had been obtained.  Reference was made to the effect of the driving ban on his personal circumstances and he gave assurances as regard to his future driving conduct.  He had been a licensed driver for fourteen years without issue and had provided references attesting to his character and good service.  In response to questions the Applicant advised that he had incurred no speeding convictions since the reinstatement of his DVLA licence.

 

In terms of dishonesty in the application process an explanation was sought as to how the wrong information came to be put before the Committee.  The Applicant explained he had a number of different vehicles, three of which were licensed, and he had since sold both motorbikes – he had been more worried about the speeding convictions rather than the vehicle they had been obtained in which had only been brought up in March.  He had contacted the DVLA with a view to proving that he had not been driving much over the speed limit but could not obtain the information.  He had been asked the question off the cuff by the Committee and had answered as honestly as he could without having the necessary information.  He was not a public speaker and had panicked to answer the question.  In his final statement the Applicant apologised again to the Committee for his actions and hoped to move on.

 

The Committee adjourned to consider the application following which it was –

 

RESOLVED that the application for a hackney carriage and private hire vehicle driver’s licence from Applicant No. 557452 be refused.

 

The reasons for the Licensing Committee’s decision were as follows –

 

The decision made by the Committee on 2 March 2022 had been based on the fact that the speeding convictions had been obtained by the Applicant solely whilst driving a motorbike through leisure pursuits and not in a professional capacity as a licensed driver.  That decision had also imposed a condition that the licence be granted, subject to all the necessary checks associated with the application being satisfactory.  Those checks had revealed that the speeding convictions presented to the Committee related to two different licensed vehicles.

 

The Committee had carefully considered the particular circumstances of the case as set out in the report together with the Applicant’s submissions, response to questions, and references provided.  Members had also considered the relevant sections of the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy regarding the suitability of applicants and licensees in the hackney carriage and private hire trades.  In particular, the Committee had considered section 4.20 which provided that any dishonesty by the applicant which was discovered to have occurred in any part of any application process would result in a licence being refused.  Given that policy provision, the Committee then considered section 3.19 of the same policy that provided a policy provision should only be departed from in exceptional circumstances and for justifiable reasons.  The Committee had taken into account the explanation provided by the Applicant with regard to the question of dishonesty together with the references provided and previous history as a licensed driver, but did not feel there was sufficient basis to depart from its policy provision in section 4.20.  Consequently, the Committee resolved to refuse the application.

 

The Committee’s decision and reasons therefore were conveyed to the Applicant.

 

The Applicant was also advised that the Committee’s decision did not preclude him from making a further application in the future.  However, the Committee impressed upon the Applicant the importance of being completely honest and transparent in any information provided in any future application.

 

The Applicant was further advised of the right of appeal against the decision within 21 days of receipt of the formal decision letter.

 

The meeting concluded at 1.15 pm.