Agenda item

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

 

At this point in the meeting, Councillor Kabuye declared a non-pecuniary interest in the following item, stating that he was familiar the applicant, as their children attended the same school. Councillor Kabuye withdrew from the meeting.

 

The Director of Environment and Community Services submitted an exempt report in connection with an application for the renewal of a Combined Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref: 22/25, 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, and accompanied by his legal representative, 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 for consideration of his renewal application for a Combined Driver’s licence following a complaint made against him on 14 October 2024.

 

The complainant stated that the applicant had overcharged her disabled mother whilst carrying her as a passenger in his hackney carriage vehicle on certain journeys from the Stainton Lodge Care Home in Middlesbrough throughout September and October 2024. The complainant stated that the applicant had charged her mother set fares of £30 and £32 for five pre-booked return taxi journeys from the Care Home. The complainant also stated that the Driver had not used his taxi meter on any of the taxi journeys he had undertaken. During the period that the above taxi journeys had been undertaken, the Combined Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence had been suspended due to the applicant’s failure to produce a medical report.

 

On 4 September 2024, Licensing Officers sent a letter to the applicant confirming that his Combined Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver Licence had been suspended with immediate effect following his failure to produce a medical report that was overdue. The letter referred to a previous reminder letter sent to the applicant, dated 16 July 2024 that had stated that his combined licence would be suspended if he had not produced a satisfactory medical report by 17 August 2024. The letter of 4 September 2024 was sent via the Council’s normal postal arrangements to the applicant’s address according to records held by the Licensing Section at that time.

 

On 11 December 2024 a Licensing Enforcement Officer contacted the applicant by telephone to remind him that his Combined Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence was still suspended as he had not provided a satisfactory medical report. On 12 December 2024, a Licensing Officer sent an email to the driver enclosing a copy of the letter dated 4 September 2024 confirming the suspension of his combined driver’s licence. The officer reaffirmed that the Licensing Section had still not received an up-to-date medical certificate from him, and therefore the suspension remained. The Officer also requested that the applicant return his driver’s identification badges as stated in the suspension letter as a matter of urgency.

 

On 12 December 2024, an email was received from the applicant by the Licensing Office stating that his address had changed in May 2024 and was therefore only aware of the suspension since the telephone call on 11 December 2024.  The applicant further advised that he had stopped working and had arranged for a medical with his GP and a medical certificate would be provided upon completion.  The applicant further advised that he would return his badges to Middlesbrough House.

 

On 25 April 2025, the applicant attended an interview with the Principal Licensing Officer and Licensing Enforcement Officer to address the complaint that had been made against him regarding the non-use of his taxi meter and alleged overcharged taxi fares. The purpose of the interview was also to seek the applicant’s explanation for driving a hackney carriage vehicle whilst his driver’s licence had been suspended.

 

The applicant and his representative were invited to address the Committee in support of his case.  The applicant and representative presented the case and responded to questions from Members of the Committee and the Council’s Legal Representative.

 

The Witness was invited to address the Committee and responded to questions from the 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 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 to renew the Combined Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle driver’s licence be refused.

 

Authority to Act

 

1. Under Section 61 of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976 (“the Act”) the Committee may revoke or suspend or refuse to renew a private hire / hackney carriage vehicle driver’s licence on the grounds that:

-        Since the grant of the licence the Driver had been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty, indecency or violence;

-        Since the grant of the licence the Driver had committed an offence or breached the Act or the Town Police Clauses Act 1847;

-        for any other reasonable cause. 

 

2. The Committee considered Section 61 of the Act, the Middlesbrough Council Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Policy 2022 (“the Policy”), the report and appendices, the representations made by the witness and representations made by the applicant and his legal representative.

 

3. The application for renewal 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 renew the application for a Combined Hackney Carriage and 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 Policy confirmed that the Council’s licensed drivers should be safe drivers with good driving records and adequate experience, sober, mentally and physically fit, be honest and not persons who would take advantage of their employment to abuse or assault passengers.

 

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

 

7. The Policy stated that criminal convictions are not the only criteria used when considering whether an individual was a fit and proper person to be licensed. The Council can consider circumstances of concern even though a conviction had not been obtained or the conduct did not amount to a criminal offence.

 

8. The applicant had been licensed as a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire driver with Middlesbrough Council since 12 July 2000. The Applicant’s current licence expired on 30 June 2025, however an application for a renewal was made on 21 June 2025.

 

9. The applicant had previously appeared before the Licensing Committee on two occasions. In 2007 Members considered a caution for common assault but permitted the Applicant to retain his licence.

 

10. In 2020, Members reviewed the applicant’s licence following a complaint that he had made inappropriate comments to a female passenger and had an unknown male travelling in the vehicle on the same journey. The Committee further considered an allegation that he had made a further inappropriate comment to an Officer of the Council. On that occasion, the Committee considered further matters on the applicant’s record including Overcrowding a Hackney Carriage Rank (2000); Arrest for GBH (2012); Parking on a Hackney Carriage Rank (2013); and Excess speed (July 2017). The Committee determined that the applicant had made inappropriate comments but that a warning be issued to prevent further inappropriate behaviour.

 

11. On 4 September 2024, Licensing Officers informed the applicant by letter that his Combined Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver Licence had been suspended with immediate effect following his failure to produce a medical report that was overdue. The applicant was first sent a reminder on 16 July 2024, that a medical report was required by 17 August 2024, all correspondence was sent to the applicant’s address held by the Licensing team at the time.

 

12. The applicant appeared before the Committee following a complaint made by a member of the public, stating that the applicant had overcharged her disabled mother whilst carrying her as a passenger on journeys to and from Stainton Lodge care home in Middlesbrough, throughout September and October 2024. The complainant stated that the applicant had charged set fares of £30 and £32 for five pre-booked return taxi journeys, and that he had not used his meter on any occasion. Several of the journeys started and ended within Middlesbrough.

 

13. On 12 December 2024, Licensing Officers emailed the applicant to notify him of the suspension of his licence and requested the return of his badges. The applicant responded the same day claiming that he had notified the Council of a change to his address in May 2023, he nevertheless confirmed he would cease driving, seek a medical report and return his badges.

 

14.  The Committee heard from the Witness who confirmed the contents of her statement. She further reaffirmed that the applicant had informed her that the price was higher due to the vehicle being wheelchair accessible and because her mother was in a wheelchair. When questioned, the Witness stated that the service was generally good and that despite her agreeing to the quoted prices, she only did so because she could not find any other driver to transport her disabled mother, despite her being unhappy with the cost. The Witness stated that she wanted a refund for the extra charges, but this was not forthcoming.

 

15. The Committee considered the submissions of the applicant. The applicant first addressed the failure to respond to the Licensing team’s request for a medical report and his continuation of driving whilst suspended. The applicant’s submissions were that he simply did not receive the correspondence. The applicant reiterated that he had notified the Council of his change of address and that he had not purposely evaded the Licensing Team, evidenced by the immediate return of the badges once he had become aware of the issue. The applicant also referenced his period of homelessness and how he had worked with the Council, again emphasising that he had not intentionally withheld his change of circumstances.

 

16. When questioned on this point, it became evident that the applicant had notified the Council Tax team, via the online portal, of his address change, and not the relevant Licensing department as required. The applicant admitted that this was a genuine mistake and he thought that all Council records would be updated.

 

17. Regarding the complaint made against the applicant for overcharging, he immediately accepted that he had made mistake and accepted responsibility. The Applicant stated that had used the meter on some occasions but not all the time.  The Committee heard that he had done so as he believed with certain jobs it was uneconomical to travel and pick up passengers at the prices on the meter and that he would be operating at a loss.

 

18. The applicant referred to his supporting evidence whereby he had evidenced fare calculations. The applicant showed how much the actual journey would have cost from travelling to pick up the passenger to dropping the passenger off, and how he was only charging what it was costing him. The applicant did not accept that he was charging extra as the passenger was disabled and in a wheelchair. The Committee also heard that, the complainant and her mother had agreed a price in advance and had the opportunity not to accept, but that they did anyway. The applicant stated he had never refused to reimburse the complainant, and that although he had not done so yet, he would refund her the extra charges.

 

19.  The Committee heard that the applicant had around 25 years of Hackney Carriage experience and had a good driving record over that time. They also heard that the applicant was not dishonest and had many regular customers relying on him for transport as they required a wheelchair accessible vehicle, as supported by the reference provided by the applicant. The applicant stated that he received tips from regular customers.

 

20. The Committee took the view that the applicant was greatly experienced, with 25 years as a Hackney Carriage vehicle driver and that it was his responsibility to notify the relevant department of any change in address. The Committee considered the Hackney Carriage Driver Licence – Rules, Regulations and Routes document of the Council, specifically where it stated that the Council must be informed in writing of any change in address within 7 days. The Committee determined that the applicant had been driving for 4 months whilst suspended.

 

21.  The Committee also considered that the applicant acted improperly by not engaging his meter for the complainant and her mother. With 25 years experience, the Committee took a negative view of the applicant’s excuse for not doing so. The Committee determined that it was extremely clear what was expected of a Hackney Carriage driver, specifically as it was detailed in the aforementioned document, where it stated that at the start of a journey the meter should read zero, then be turned on when the customers had entered the vehicle and must not be turned off until the end of the journey. The applicant had not done this.

 

22. They further considered the agreement of a fare but determined that this was irrelevant, as again the Hackney Carriage Driver Licence – Rules, Regulations and Routes document was clear whereby it stated that it was allowed to agree a fare prior to the journey starting but that the meter must still be activated. At the end of the journey if the metered fare was lower, that was the fare, if it was higher than the agreed price, the passenger should be charged the agreed amount.

 

23. The Committee had formed the view that the applicant had repeatedly disregarded the rules and Policy on numerous occasions and further determined that he had failed to be honest in his practices. The Committee had found that he had taken advantage of the situation and specifically the vulnerable passenger and that the immediate incidents coupled with the previous complaints heard by other Committees, showed that he was not a fit and proper person.

 

24. The Committee, based on the evidence it was presented with, decided that the applicant was not a fit and proper person or safe and suitable to be licensed as a combined Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle driver in Middlesbrough, and therefore refused to renew the licence for the reasons set out above.

 

25. 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.

 

26. 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 £1000.

 

Councillor Kabuye rejoined the meeting at this point