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: 10/24, where circumstances had arisen which required special consideration by the Committee.

 

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

 

The Principal Licensing Officer presented a summary of the report outlining that the driver was first licensed with Middlesbrough Council in June 2023.  He now appeared before Members as a result of an incident on 13 May 2024 which raised concerns over the safety and welfare of a child.

 

On 14 May 2024 the Licensing Department received an email from the Community Transport Manager at Stockton Council stating that they had received a report from a local college reporting they had witnessed a school transport taxi leaving the site then parking in a nearby supermarket car park at which point the child passenger was transferred into another vehicle.  It was then reported that the driver had an appointment and had asked a friend to transport the child home.  This had been reported to the driver’s employer.

 

Middlesbrough’s Licensing Officer made contact direct with the college and spoke to the Safeguarding Officer to obtain further details about the complaint.  The Officer asked that his contact details be passed to the child’s parents and asked to contact him.

 

On 16 May 2024, the Licensing Officer contacted the driver’s employer to ask them to confirm that they were aware of the incident and the outcome of any subsequent interview with the driver.  A response was received confirming that they were aware of the incident and had reported the matter to Stockton Council, assuming that the driver was licensed with Stockton Council.

The driver had confirmed to his employer that he had collected the child from the college and stopped not far away and had asked a friend to take the child home as he had a family emergency and had panicked.  The driver had not notified his employer at the time, or following the incident.

 

The driver was advised of the proper course of action should there be any reason why a journey could not be completed.  It was also highlighted that the child had arrived home safely.

 

The Licensing Officer contacted the driver on 16 May when the driver provide the name of the friend who had transported the child home.  The friend was not a licensed private hire driver.

 

The was interviewed by a Licensing Enforcement Officer, by telephone, on 22 May 2024 when he provided an explanation in relation to the incident on 13 May.  The driver stated that he had been called to attend a family emergency and that his friend had been parked in a nearby car park.  He had panicked and asked his friend to take the child home.

 

On 6 June 2024, the Licensing Officer conducted a telephone interview with the friend of the driver who confirmed the driver’s version of events and also confirmed that he was not, and never had been, a licensed driver.  Nor did he take any payment for the journey.

 

The Principal Licensing Officer advised that there had been a further development and that he had been contacted by the Safeguarding Officer at Stockton Council this morning to inform him that the child’s mother had called expressing concerns that the driver had visited her home at 10.00pm yesterday evening accompanied by his wife and baby.  The parent had stated the driver had asked to state that she had given agreement to the other driver taking her son home and had also asked her not to let the Committee know that he had visited her.

 

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

 

The driver’s representative addressed the Committee in support of the driver and he and the driver responded to questions from Members and the Council’s Legal Representative.

 

It was confirmed that there were no further questions and the driver, his representative 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: 10/24, 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 on grounds they consider to be reasonable cause. Section 61(2)(b) allows for this revocation to be with immediate effect, ‘in the interests of public safety’.

 

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 and his representative.

 

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

 

Decision

 

4.    After carefully considering all the information, the Licensing Committee decided to revoke the Private Hire Vehicle driver’s licence with immediate effect on the following grounds:-

 

i)              The driver acted in a manner that risked the health and safety of a child by passing him to an unlicensed and uninsured third party to undertake the journey.

 

ii)             The driver compounded those actions by visiting the home of the child and mother, requesting that they change their testimony so that he could retain his licence.

 

5.     In the Committee’s view, the first action alone demonstrated that he was not a fit and person to hold a licence and furthermore this was an issue of safeguarding/public safety. The second action compounded the offensive behaviour, in the Committee’s view, and demonstrated a disregard of appropriate conduct that further demonstrated that he was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

 

Reasons

 

6.     The driver attended Committee with his representative who made representations on the driver’s behalf.  Both the driver and representative answered questions from the Committee.

 

7.    The driver admitted that he had passed his fare (a 16 year old boy he collected on a contract from an education establishment in Stockton) to a friend to complete the journey.  He stated that this was because he had received a call from his pregnant wife and he was worried about her. He went on to say that, at that very moment he saw his friend, a non-taxi driver from Scotland who had been visiting him earlier that day, in a nearby car park and had asked him to undertake the fare/ride in his place.

 

8.    The driver confirmed that he did not contact his employer regarding the fact he needed another driver to take the fare, whilst he contacted his wife.  Neither did he do so afterwards.  He did not consider asking the school to keep the boy safe whilst another taxi was arranged.

 

9.    The driver admitted to attending the home of the passenger and his mother around 10pm the day before the hearing.  He said that he did not ask her to provide a different version of events and merely asked to explain the circumstances.  He admitted, on questioning, that he had neither apologised to the family nor any other party directly or indirectly before then.

10.  The driver’s representative acknowledged, on his client’s behalf, that the issue was one of safeguarding.  He offered that his client re-take the knowledge test and safeguarding course.

 

11.  The driver went into great detail about problems with the pregnancy and birth of his child, almost all of which related to issues and/or circumstances that occurred after the incident took place.

 

12.  The decision of the Committee was based on the evidence before them.  It was, therefore, decided that the driver’s reckless behaviour with regard to his child passenger was a significant safeguarding issue and was wholly unacceptable.  This alone would have been sufficient to warrant the revocation of his taxi licence.

 

13.  The Committee was not required to decide, as a matter of fact, whether or not the driver had a family emergency on that day.  They considered the safeguarding issue to be paramount and were aware of easy alternatives to the course of action undertaken by the driver if he required a replacement driver for the fare.

 

14.  It was also decided that the act of attending the boy’s house at all, let alone at 10pm the evening before the Council’s Committee hearing, in order to improperly influence the hearing’s outcome, was a further matter of conduct that demonstrated that the driver was not a fit and proper person to hold a taxi licence.

 

15.  His licence was, therefore, revoked with immediate effect.

 

16.  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.

 

17.  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.