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: 11/25, 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 Licensing Manager presented a summary of the report stating that the applicant appeared before Members due to the convictions listed at 1) to 4) in the submitted report. 

 

It was highlighted that the applicant had failed to declare the convictions listed at 3) and 4) in his application but had declared the convictions at 1) and 2) and provided a DBS disclosure certificate showing those convictions.

 

The Principal Licensing Officer contacted the applicant, by telephone, on 9 January 2025 to discuss the convictions declared at 1) and 2) but, at that time, the Officer was not aware of the further convictions at 3) and 4).  During discussion around the possible implications of the convictions at 1) and 2) in relation to the Council’s Policy Guidance on convictions, the applicant confirmed he wished to proceed with the application process.

 

Later the same day, the Principal Licensing Officer discovered online media coverage from May 2016 regarding the applicant’s involvement in operating as an unlicensed driver in a Private Hire Vehicle in Stockton.  Subsequent enquiries with Stockton Council revealed that the applicant had been prosecuted by Stockton Council in May 2016 for two offences on 10 June 2015, as detailed in the convictions at 3) and 4) in the report.  Stockton Council also provided a description of the offences and a summary of facts, together with further information held in its records regarding the offences at 1) and 2).

 

On 13 January 2025, the Principal Licensing Officer received an email from the applicant’s prospective employer, on behalf of the applicant, providing an explanation in relation to the offences at 1) and 2).

 

Due to Officers having further questions for the applicant, an interview was arranged for 18 March 2025 when the applicant provided explanations in relation to each of the offences at 1) to 4) in the report and confirmed that there were no outstanding issues of which the Council was unaware.

 

The interview highlighted discrepancies between the applicant’s explanation regarding the offences at 1) and 2) and the information provided by West Yorkshire Police at the time of the offences.

 

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

 

The applicant addressed the Committee 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: 11/25, 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 driver 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 to grant the application for a Private Hire Vehicle driver’s licence on the grounds that the Committee was not satisfied the applicant was a fit and proper person to be granted the licence.  The reasons for the decision were as follows:

 

Reasons 

 

5.     The applicant was convicted of four offences as follows:

 

a)     Facilitate the acquisition/acquire/possess criminal property on 27 October 2010 – Convicted on 23 March 2012 – 12 months imprisonment and confiscation of £9,500.

b)     Conspire/supply a controlled drug – Crack Cocaine on 27 October 2010 – Convicted on 23 March 2012 – 3 years imprisonment.

c)     Knowingly act as a driver of a licensed private hire vehicle, without having a current private hire driver’s licence with Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council on 10 June 2015 – Convicted on 10 May 2016 – See below sentence.

d)     Use a licensed Private Hire Vehicle when there was not in force in relation to the use of the said vehicle such a policy of insurance on 10 June 2015 – Convicted on 10 May 2016 – Fined £485, Costs £1,123, Victim Surcharge £48.50, this covers the above offence.

 

6.     The Policy on Convictions was set out at Appendix G, Policy on the Relevance of Convictions, Cautions, Reprimands, Warnings, Complaints and Character.

 

7.     The Policy stated that if a conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning related to the supply of controlled drugs; possession with intention to supply controlled drugs; the production of controlled drugs (for commercial purposes) or importing drugs then the application would be refused until at least 10 years had elapsed since the completion of any sentence.

 

8.     It was also detailed in the Policy that a licensed Private Hire Vehicle driver was expected to be a trustworthy person, and a serious view was taken of any conviction of dishonesty.  In general, for an isolated conviction for any offence where dishonesty was an element of the offence, a licence would not be granted until at least seven years had elapsed since the completion of any sentence imposed.

 

9.     The Policy continued that a licence would normally be refused if an applicant had been convicted of a serious offence involving dishonesty or had more than one conviction for a dishonesty offence, showing they were likely to be continually dishonest, regardless of the time elapsed since the conviction or completion of the sentence imposed.

 

10.  The applicant, when prompted on the application form, confirmed that he had a conviction for supplying Class A drugs, however, had failed to disclose the offences concerning the 10 June 2015 incident.

 

11.  The Committee determined that there were inconsistencies in the explanations that the applicant had given the Licensing Officers and the Police at the time of his arrest.  The Committee heard that the applicant had denied all knowledge of the drugs to the Police, but informed Licensing Officers that the drugs were purchased for his brother who was a drug user.

 

12.  The Committee further determined that the applicant’s explanation for the offences on 10 June 2015 also contained inconsistencies.  Stockton Borough Council informed Licensing Officers that the Private Hire Vehicle was displaying a plate number, whereas the applicant had stated to Licensing Officers that the vehicle had no plate displayed.

 

13.  The Committee considered that the applicant simply forgetting to disclose the offences on 10 June 2015 on the application form was unacceptable.  The Committee, based on the evidence it was presented with, decided that the applicant was dishonest.

 

14.  The Committee considered the discrepancies in accounts as well as the serious nature of the offences, including supply of a Class A drug, and had serious concerns that the applicant was dishonest and, therefore, not a fit and proper person to hold a licence.  The Committee also found that the applicant had been caught acting as a Private Hire Vehicle driver without having a licence, which related to the trade he was applying for.

 

15.  The Committee considered that the applicant had committed serious offences involving the supply of drugs and of a dishonest nature.  The Committee determined that despite the time elapsed since the convictions, there were no compelling, clear, good or exceptional reasons to depart from the Policy and refused the licence for the reasons set out above.

 

16.  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 local magistrates for the area was the Teesside Justice Centre, Teesside Magistrates, Victoria Square, Middlesbrough.

 

17.  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.

 

** DECLARATION OF INTEREST

 

At this point in the meeting, Councillor Morrish declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to the following item as the applicant was a constituent in his Ward, however, neither party was known to one another.