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: 17/24, 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 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 had previously been licensed with Middlesbrough Council from 15 September 2023 until it lapsed on 31 August 2024, and now appeared before Members as a result of the conviction detailed at 1) in the submitted report.

 

The Committee heard that, on 13 August 2024, Licensing Officers received an email from the applicant’s employer containing three screen shots of DVLA records showing that the driver had received six penalty points, on 3 May 2024, for the offence of ‘Failure to give information as to identify the driver.”  The information showed that the offence had occurred on 24 May 2023.  It showed the driver’s DVLA licence was valid from 13 August 2024 which indicated that he would most likely have been disqualified from driving as a consequence of the motoring conviction.  Until the email received, the Licensing department was unaware of the conviction as the driver had not notified the Council, as required by condition of his licence.  A copy of the email notification was attached at Appendix 1.

 

As a result of the information received, Licensing Officers requested the driver’s attendance at the office to discuss the matter on 14 August 2024.  He was unable to explain the offence which led to him receiving six penalty points but believed it might have been in connection with a vehicle he no longer owned and also revealed his DVLA licence was revoked but was unsure as to why.

 

He retuned to the office with a bundle of documents obtained from his legal representatives.  Licensing Officers established that on 20 April 2023, a vehicle belonging to the driver at that time, was involved in a collision with another vehicle.  The driver and passenger in the vehicle had swapped seats and attempted to drive away but, when doing so, the vehicle rolled backwards and collied with the other vehicle for a second time.  A copy of the bundle of documents was attached at Appendix 2.

 

On 26 April 2023, the investigating Police Officer sent two relevant notices to the driver as he was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the incident.  Such notices were legal documents requiring the registered keeper to name the drive when the alleged incident occurred.  In this case road traffic offence of driving with out due care and attention and failing to stop/report an RTC.  As the driver only responded one of the notices, he was issued with a Court summons.

 

He attended Magistrates Court on 3 May 2024 and pleaded guilty to the offence and was issued with six penalty points.  As he had held a full UK DLVA driving licence for less than two years, his DVLA licence was revoked, in accordance with standard practice.

 

The applicant has since successfully reapplied for a DVLA driving licence and passed another driving test.  His new DVLA licence was valid from 13 August 2024.

 

The applicant was invited to a further interview with Licensing Officers on 20 August 2024 when he explained the circumstances of the incident.  He stated that he had not informed the Licensing Department of the conviction and penalty points as he had informed his employer and assumed they would pass on the information.  In relation to why he had been unable to supply a satisfactory explanation during his first interview on 14 August, he stated he had sold the vehicle to an unknown person and that the accident was nothing to do with him.  He also stated her had been confused and had not understood the questions in the first interview.

 

It was highlighted that the applicant had not applied to renew his Private Hire Vehicle driver licence prior to its expiry date on 31 August 2024, but did make a new application on 12 September 2024 stating within that application “points on licence, please check DVLA code”.

 

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

 

The applicant spoke in support of his application and responded to questions from Members of the Committee 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 teams, 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: 17/24, be refused, as follows:-

 

Authority to Act

 

1.    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 was satisfied the applicant was a fit and proper person to be granted such a licence.

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 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

 

5.    The applicant had one previous conviction regarding the failure to identify a driver/rider of a vehicle when required, however, a number of concerns were brought to the Committee’s attention regarding the nature of this offence.

6.    Within the report pack, the applicant underwent two interviews concerning an accident which took place on 20 April 2023.  The applicant contradicted himself, stating in his first interview (14 August 2024) with Licensing Officers, he denied any involvement in the accident and he may have sold the vehicle at the time to another person at the time.  However, in the second interview (20 August 2024) he stated he was involved in the accident but was not the driver.  He stated the vehicle rolled back at traffic lights which is when the first collision occurred.  At this point he attempted to swap seats with the driver which resulted in the car rolling back and a second collision occurred. The applicant stated the driver at the time was his friend who also purchased the vehicle.  The applicant could not provide the individual’s name when questioned by the Committee.  When asked why he decided to swap seats after the collision occurred, the applicant could not explain why.

7.    In relation to the conviction on 3 May 2024 whereby the offence committed by the applicant was the failure to disclose/identify the driver/rider of the vehicle, the applicant stated he received a letter from the Police/CPS requesting the disclosure of the driver.  He stated he did not understand what this letter was or what the offence was at the time.  He states he had instructed a local law firm to deal with this matter and they had advised him to plead guilty.  He stated he pleaded guilty because he did not understand and followed the advice of his solicitor.  The Committee was reluctant to accept the applicant’s version of events in that a solicitor would ask a client to plead guilty to a charge they did not understand.

8.    The applicant also stated someone had attacked him and/or his vehicle at McDonalds on 17 April 2024, which the Committee understood to be indicative of where the damage to the applicant’s vehicle had occurred.  No evidence of this was produced before the Committee.

9.    In respect of the evidence before members, the Committee considered all previous convictions, character and actions of the applicant.  The Committee considered the incidents and decisions made by the applicant in assessing whether or not the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a taxi licence.

10.  The applicant had shown signs of dishonesty and, therefore, the Committee did not consider the applicant a ‘fit and proper person’, under S51 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, to hold a licence.

11.  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 is the Teesside Justice Centre, Teesside Magistrates, Victoria Square, Middlesbrough.

12.  If the applicant does 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.