Agenda item

The Director of Environment and Community Services submitted an exempt report in connection with the review of Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref: 05/24, where circumstances had arisen which required special consideration by the Committee.

 

With the permission of the Chair, the Licensing Manager circulated a copy of a written statement provided by the driver in support of his case.

 

The Chair introduced those present and outlined the procedure to be followed.  The driver was in attendance at the meeting, accompanied by his wife, and verified his name and address and confirmed that he had received a copy of the report and understood its contents. 

 

The Licensing Manager presented a summary of the report outlining that the matter was due to be considered at the previous meeting of the Committee on 15 April, however, it was deferred due to unforeseen circumstances.  The driver appeared before Members due to allegations of inappropriate comments being made during a journey made by a minor travelling in his vehicle.

 

It was highlighted that the driver was first licensed with Middlesbrough Council in January 2024.  Concerns were raised by an alternative education provider with the driver’s employer on 5 March 2024 regarding the conduct of a Private Hire Vehicle driver who had undertaken a booking to transport a 14-year-old female pupil to her home address.  This followed concerns raised by the pupil’s mother immediately following the journey when the pupil had reported that the driver had made a number of inappropriate comments and questions making her feel frightened and vulnerable.

 

A copy of the initial email from the education provider to the driver’s employer was attached at Appendix 1.

 

As of a result of the email received, an investigation was conducted by the driver’s employer to establish the identity of the driver and he was subsequently interviewed on 6 March.  The driver had stated he did attend the education establishment but was told by a member of staff that the pupil had left.  He had stated he undertook the journey anyway so that he would still be paid for the journey and that he had done so because of a previous instance when something similar had happened and he was not paid by his employer for the fare.  Following the interview, the employer made further enquiries using the vehicle’s tracking system which confirmed that the vehicle in question had undertaken the journey from the education establishment to the pupil’s home address, however, the system does not show whether any passengers were carried in the vehicle.  Two CCTV stills were provided by the education establishment showing the pupil getting into the driver’s vehicle on the day in question.

 

The driver’s employer provided details of the interview undertaken with the driver and the investigation to the Licensing department on 12 March.  This was attached at Appendix 2.  Copies of the CCTV stills from the education establishment showing the pupil approaching then entering the driver’s vehicle were attached at Appendix 3.

 

The driver was subsequently interviewed by a Licensing Enforcement Officer on 14 March 2024 in relation to the incident.  The driver confirmed that he had undertaken the fare in question on 5 March and that whilst he did hold a conversation with the pupil during the journey he did not ask inappropriate questions or make inappropriate comments.  When asked why he had informed his employer that he had not picked up the pupil at all, he stated he had been confused and thought his employer was referring to a similar booking where he had undertaken the journey, despite not having a passenger, in order to get paid.

As this version of events differed from that provided to his employer, the Licensing Enforcement Officer discussed this with his employer and his employer sent a further email to the Licensing department clarifying the previous interview undertaken with the driver.  This was attached at Appendix 4.

 

On 14 March 2024, a Licensing Enforcement Officer spoke to the mother of the pupil concerned and she confirmed the details of her complaint.  The complainant provided two emails, detailing the circumstances of the incident, to the Licensing department.  The first email stated an incorrect time which was corrected in the second email.  Copies were attached at Appendix 5.

 

The Licensing Manager advised that the complainant (the pupil’s mother) had been in attendance at the previous Licensing Committee when the matter was due to be heard.  Several attempts to contact her to invite her to today’s meeting had been made but had been unsuccessful.  A letter inviting her to the meeting had also been hand-delivered to her home address but she had made no further contact with the Licensing department and was not in attendance at the meeting.

 

The driver confirmed that the report was an accurate representation of the facts and was invited to address the Committee in support of his case. 

 

The driver addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members, the Council’s Legal Representative and Licensing Manager.

 

It was confirmed that there were no further questions and the driver, his wife, 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 driver would receive the full decision and reasons within five working days.

 

ORDERED that Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref No: 05/24, be revoked, with immediate effect.

 

Authority to Act

 

1.     Under Section 61 (1) (b) of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976 (“the Act”) the Committee may decide to suspend or revoke the licence of a Private Hire Vehicle driver on grounds they consider to be reasonable cause.

2.     The Committee considered Sections 61 and 57 of the Act, the Middlesbrough Council Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Policy 2022 (“the Policy”), the report and representations made by the driver, who was in attendance at the meeting with his wife.

3.     The review was considered on its own particular facts and on its merits.

Decision

 

4.     Following careful consideration of all the information, the Licensing Committee decided to revoke the Private Hire Vehicle driver’s licence with immediate effect (in the interest of public safety under Section 61 (2B)) on the grounds of the following:-

 

i)       The driver had acted dishonestly by taking payments for a taxi journey(s) he did not complete.

ii)      The driver failed to uphold the standards of safeguarding, especially in respect of a vulnerable person.

 

Reasons

 

5.     The Committee heard an account of the driver in respect of the collection of a child from a school, and who had allegedly made inappropriate comments towards the child during the course of that journey. The Committee also heard an account of the driver’s admission of dishonesty.

 

6.     The Policy confirmed that the Council’s licensed drivers were expected to be trustworthy persons. The qualities which the Committee specifically refer to were honesty, integrity and safeguarding which formed part of being a fit and proper person.

 

7.     For completeness, fraud under its legal definition as per the Fraud Act 2006; A person who dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making that representation, to make a gain for himself or cause a loss to another.

 

8.     The driver advised the Committee of a misunderstanding with regards to the interview conducted on 6 March 2024 by his employer.  The driver stated that, during the interview, he was referring to a different taxi job where he stated he went to collect a student from another school and was confused as to which incident was being referred to.

 

9.     It was noted that the mother and sister of the victim (the child) had attended a previous hearing, however, due to a conflict of interest, the matter was adjourned.  The mother and sister did not attend the hearing on 13 May 2024.

 

10.  The Committee referred to Appendix 4 which detailed an interview that had taken place on 6 March 2024.  The driver admitted to taking money for jobs he never completed.  He advised he did this as he has previously lost money for attending a job whereby the child was not present at the school and he was not paid.  This was further corroborated in the driver’s additional evidence where he stated:

 

“Yes it was dishonest of me to complete a journey without the passenger in order to be paid, however, I am not the only driver that has missed out on payments when customers aren’t there…”

 

The Committee considered this to be admission to an act of fraud.

 

11.  Dishonesty, under the Taxi Licence Policy (Appendix G, Section (i)), stated that expectations were clear for the licensed driver who was expected to be a trustworthy person.

 

12.  In line with the Taxi Licence Standards and the Policy, there was a duty on taxi licence holders to safeguard passengers with specific reference to vulnerable people. The Committee considered children to fall within the category of vulnerable people and, therefore, extra care should have been taken to ensure the child felt safe.

 

13.  The Committee questioned the driver on the collection of the child from the school and he stated in his additional evidence:-

 

“there has been no discrepancy in anything I have said in any of the interviews I attended”.

However, the Committee found that there were discrepancies with regards to the collection of the child, where the driver stated in the interview with his employer that he never collected the child, but there was evidence showing CCTV screenshots of the collection (Appendix 3).  He then stated he was confused about which collection was being referred to.

 

14.  There were also discrepancies in how he the driver explained he had showed his phone to the child - with him originally stating he pulled his phone out of his pocket and then, upon intervention from his wife, stated that it was actually in a mobile dock attached to his dashboard.  As a result, the Committee considered the driver to lack credibility.

 

15.  Furthermore, the Committee asked the driver on the interaction between himself and the child. The driver stated he had not made her feel uncomfortable as he interacted with her in the same way he would have interacted with his own daughters who were of similar age. The driver denied making any reference to cheating on his wife and stated he showed a picture of his family using his mobile phone to the child whilst undertaking the journey.

 

16.  Whilst the driver gave an account of his actions and admitted to conversing with the child to make her feel comfortable, the Committee considered the driver to be unaware if he had made the child feel uncomfortable and more care should have been taken in the situation to ensure a vulnerable person felt safe.

 

17.  The decision of the Committee was based on the evidence before it and, therefore, decided that the driver was dishonest in taking payment for a job which he had not completed and engaged in actions which amounted to fraud.  Further to this, whilst the complaint regarding inappropriate comments was disputed by the driver, the Committee considered the driver to have failed in upholding safeguarding standards and raised concerns regarding public safety. The Committee felt more should have been done to ensure the child felt safe in the vehicle.  The Committee also considered that the nature of the dishonest actions and discrepancies within his evidence further added to the lack of credibility of the driver and, therefore, could not consider him to be trustworthy.

 

18.  It was, therefore, considered whether the driver was a ‘fit and proper’ person.  Whilst no criminal conviction or charges were brought against the driver for his conduct, in admitting to the dishonesty, which the Committee considered to amount to fraud, paired with the failure in safeguarding a vulnerable person and the risk to public safety, it was the Committee’s decision that the driver was not a ‘fit and proper’ person and to revoke his Private Hire Vehicle driver licence with immediate effect.

 

19.  If the driver was aggrieved by the decision, he may appeal 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 was the Teesside Justice Centre, Teesside Magistrates, Victoria Square, Middlesbrough.

 

20.  If the driver 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 driver which could be in the region of £1,000.

 

** DECLARATION OF INTEREST

 

The Chair, Councillor Lewis, declared a non-pecuniary interest in the following agenda item, as the applicant was known to her.  Councillor Lewis withdrew from the meeting at this point and, therefore, took no part in the consideration or determination of the matter.

 

** VICE CHAIR IN THE CHAIR

 

Owing to the Chair declaring an interest in the following item, the Vice Chair, Coussncillor Hill, took the Chair at this point in the meeting.