Agenda item

The Director of Environment and Community Services submitted an exempt report in connection with an application for a Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref: 08/24, where circumstances had arisen which required special consideration by the Committee.

 

The Chair introduced those present and outlined the procedure to be followed.  The applicant, who was in attendance at the meeting, 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 applicant appeared before Committee as a result of the offence detailed at 1) in the submitted report.

 

The offence was revealed during a routine DBS check, however, the applicant had not disclosed the offence on his application form.

 

The applicant was interviewed by a Licensing Officer on 8 April 2024 when he confirmed that there were no outstanding matters of which the Council should be aware and offered and explanation in relation to the offence at 1).

 

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

 

The applicant addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members 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 application. 

 

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 Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref No: 08/24, refused.

 

Authority to Act

 

1.    Under Section 51 of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976 (“the Act”) the Committee may grant a licence to drive Private Hire Vehicles provided the applicant was a ‘fit and proper person’.

 

2.    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.

 

3.    The Committee also considered whether there was good reason to depart from the Policy, having regard to the conviction recorded against the applicant.

 

4.    The Application was considered on its own particular facts and on its merits.

 

Decision

 

5.    After carefully considering all the information, the Licensing Committee decided not to grant the Private Hire Vehicle driver’s licence.

Reasons

 

6.    The applicant admitted to a conviction of stalking of a female in 2019 whilst working as a security guard in Essex and for which he received a six month prison sentence suspended for two years and a restraining order.

 

7.    The applicant claimed to the Committee that he did not know he had been convicted. He previously told the licensing department that he did not know that the matter would be revealed by the checks undertaken by the Licensing Authority.

 

8.    The applicant gave an account of the incident – including claiming to have been badly advised by lawyers - and being unaware he had received a suspended prison sentence.  The Committee asked questions regarding the conviction.

 

9.    Members had to consider whether to depart from the Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Licensing Policy.  Whilst the Policy makes no direct reference to ‘stalking’ as an offence, the Committee considered it to be akin to crimes of violence and of a sexual nature. They found no reason why they should depart from the Policy because the conviction was recent (2019) and serious (he received a suspended prison sentence).

 

10.  The Committee also regarded that, because the applicant had omitted the conviction from his application, that this, together with his verbal testimony, demonstrated that he was dishonest. The Committee, therefore, also applied this aspect of Appendix G to the policy:

 

“Where an applicant has made a false statement or given a false declaration on their application, the licence will normally be refused.  Applicants or existing licence holders that are found to have intentionally misled the Council, or lied as part of the application process, will not be issued with a licence.”

 

11.  Therefore, in accordance with the Policy, the applicant was refused the licence as, in the Committee’s view, he unambiguously failed the ‘fit and proper person’ test.  This was because he presented a safety risk to the public because of his criminal conviction and because he was considered to be dishonest.

 

12.  If the applicant 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.

 

1.    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 £1,000.

 

APPLICATION – PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE DRIVER LICENCE – REF: 09/24

 

The Director of Environment and Community Services submitted an exempt report in connection with an application for a Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref: 09/24, where circumstances had arisen which required special consideration by the Committee.

 

The Chair introduced those present and outlined the procedure to be followed.  The applicant, who was in attendance at the meeting, 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 applicant appeared before Committee as a result of his previous convictions detailed at 1) and 2) in the submitted report and four recorded complaints received when the applicant had previously been licensed by Middlesbrough Council between 1 March 2016 and 25 May 2018 when his licence was revoked.

 

The applicant was interviewed by a Licensing Officer on 23 April 2024 when he confirmed that there were no outstanding matters of which the Council should be aware and offered explanations in relation to the offences at 1) and 2) and in relation to the complaints.

 

It was highlighted that complaint number 4) related to a failed routine random drugs test which led to the applicant’s licence being revoked by Officers, with immediate effect.

 

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

 

The applicant addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members.

 

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 application. 

 

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 Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref No: 09/24, be refused.

 

Authority to Act

 

1.    Under Section 51 of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976 (“the Act”) the Committee may grant a licence to drive Private Hire Vehicles provided the applicant was a ‘fit and proper person’.

 

2.    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.

 

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

 

Decision

 

4.    After carefully considering all the information, the Licensing Committee decided not to grant the Private Hire Vehicle driver’s licence.

 

Reasons

 

5.    The applicant admitted to previously holding a taxi licence with Middlesbrough Council but that the licence was revoked due to a random drug test by the Council revealing the presence of cocaine and amphetamines in his system.

 

6.    The applicant claimed in Committee that he believed that his drink had been spiked with the drugs and that he had not been aware of them because he had been drinking heavily.

 

7.    This version of events contradicted the official record provided by the Licensing Officer to the Committee.  That record revealed that the applicant had admitted to taking the drugs within an interview relating to his prior revocation.

 

8.    The official record of his prior revocation showed he had admitted to having taken a ‘line of cocaine’ the day prior to the test.

 

9.    The applicant was asked questions by the Committee relating to the incident to try to understand whether the time lapse from the previous revocation and his subsequent conduct meant that he would pass the ‘fit and proper person’ test.

 

10.  Members were not required to consider whether the Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Licensing Policy required them to refuse the licence unless they found exceptional circumstances, because of the time lapse from revocation (and, therefore, the controlled drugs matter), to the new application.

 

11.  However, they found the applicant’s verbal testimony to be unreliable as it was not possible for this account and the previous account provided to both be true.  They, therefore, considered and applied this aspect of Appendix G to the policy:

 

“Where an applicant has made a false statement or given a false declaration on their application, the licence will normally be refused. Applicants or existing licence holders that are found to have intentionally misled the Council, or lied as part of the application process, will not be issued with a licence.”

 

12.  Therefore, in accordance with the Policy, the applicant was refused the licence as, in the Committee’s view, he unambiguously failed the ‘fit and proper person’ test.

 

13.  If the applicant 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.

 

14.  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 £1,000.