Minutes:
The Chair introduced those present and outlined the procedure to be followed. The applicant, who attended the meeting, verified his name and address, and confirmed that he had received a copy of the report and understood its contents but did not have a copy with him. The Applicant confirmed he did not have any questions on the process to be followed.
There were no questions from Members on the contents of the report.
The Licensing Manager presented a summary of the report. At the point of application Licensing officers identified an entry on the National Register of Taxi and Private Hire Driver Refusals and Revocations (NR3) database. This stated the Applicant was refused a Private Hire Driver Licence on 28 February 2022. As such further information was requested from Wolverhampton Council. This information was included in the appendix marked TH1 in the report.
At this point in the meeting the committee agreed to a temporary adjournment while TH1 was printed for Members.
When discussing TH1 the committee was advised the Applicant had engaged in abusive language over emails and phone calls with Wolverhampton Council officers. The committee was also advised of offences 1 through 5 that were detailed in the report.
The Applicant was invited to present his case to the committee. The Applicant subsequently responded to questions from Members, the Licensing Manager and the Council’s Legal Representative. It was confirmed that there were no further questions and the Applicant, and Officers of the Council, other than representatives of the Council’s Legal and Democratic Services, withdrew from the meeting whilst the Committee determined the review.
Subsequently, all parties returned, and the Chair announced a summary of the Committee’s decision and highlighted that the Applicant would receive the full decision and reasons within five working days.
ORDERED that the application for a private hire Driver Licence be refused.
Authority to Act
Under Section 51 of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976 (“the Act”) the Committee may decide to grant a private hire vehicle driver’s licence only if it is satisfied the driver is a fit and proper person to be granted such a licence.
The Committee considered Section 51 of the Act, the Middlesbrough Council Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Policy 2022 (“the Policy”), the report and representations made by the Applicant and his representative.
The Application was considered on its own particular facts and on its merits.
Decision
After carefully considering all the information, the Licensing Committee decided to refuse the Application for a Private Hire vehicle driver’s licence on the grounds that it was not satisfied the Applicant was a fit and proper person to be granted such a licence.
Reasons
The Applicant previously admitted to having been a user of drugs, namely cannabis. The Applicant claimed since the date of his conviction of driving under the influence of drugs in 2008, he has been clean and no longer uses any drugs.
Based on the Applicant’s evidence, he applied for a Private Hire vehicle driver’s licence at Wolverhampton Council and was employed by that Council from the 20 December 2019 to 18 December 2020. The Applicant failed to renew his licence with Wolverhampton Council and as a result he had to apply for a new licence. As a result, the Applicant’s licence lapsed, and he could no longer operate as a private hire driver for that Council.
Documents referred to in TH1 showed a transcript of abusive and offensive language used towards Wolverhampton Council by the Applicant. The Applicant admitted to using the language due to his frustration, referring to staff members of Wolverhampton Council in a derogatory and abusive manner. The Applicant advised he attempted to call Wolverhampton Council ‘a thousand times’ and accused the Council of lying to him on a number of occasions which is what led to the abusive and derogatory language.
The Applicant was asked why he did not email Wolverhampton Council to which he responded he had no email contact. However, the evidence in TH1 showed abusive emails being sent to Wolverhampton Council. Nevertheless, the Applicant stated he was regretful of his actions.
The Applicant was asked to attend offices by Wolverhampton Council. The Applicant did not attend. The Committee questioned why he did not attend to which he responded he could not afford to. However, the Applicant had stated previously that he had a career job and was working during the period he was not taxiing.
Further to this, in the application for Middlesbrough Private Hire Licence, the Applicant was asked whether the Applicant had been refused a licence by any other licensing authority in the last 5 years to which he responded “no”.
The Applicant was also requested to disclose all driving convictions (including motoring offences). He did not disclose the speeding offence in 2015 whereby he received 3 points to his licence. The Applicant stated he mistakenly did not provide these.
The Applicant made submissions on the day of regret for his actions, a change in his family circumstances (having a wife and three children) and wanting to provide help the community as well as using his vehicle to drive to the mosque.
In respect of the evidence before members, the Committee considered all previous convictions, cautions, character and actions of the Applicant. The Committee considered there was elements of dishonesty as well as issues regarding improper character and conduct of the Applicant which is directly contrary to the policy and code of conduct.
Therefore, the Committee did not consider the Applicant a ‘fit and proper person’ under S51 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.
If the Applicant was aggrieved by the decision, he may have appealed to a Magistrates Court within 21 days from the date of the notice of the decision. The address for the local magistrates for the area is the Teesside Justice Centre, Teesside Magistrates, Victoria Square, Middlesbrough.
If the Applicant did appeal the decision and the appeal was dismissed by the Magistrates Court, the Council would claim its costs in defending its decision from the Applicant which could be in the region of £1000.
Supporting documents: