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: 24/25, 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, outlining that the applicant appeared before Members in relation to the convictions detailed at 1) to 9) in the submitted report.  In response to the question regarding previous convictions the Applicant subsequently provided a DBS disclosure certificate dated 1 April 2025 which revealed the convictions at 1) to 9) in the report.

 

On 1 April 2025, a Licensing Officer carried out a check on the status of the applicant’s DVLA driving licence that showed endorsements recorded against him.

 

On 16 June 2025, the applicant attended an interview with a Licensing Enforcement Officer to explain the circumstances surrounding his convictions, and to also provide any other information in support of his application

 

The applicant was invited to address 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’s Licence, Ref No: 24/25, be granted, 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.

 

 

4.     After carefully considering all the information, the Licensing Committee decided to grant the Application for a Private Hire vehicle driver’s licence on the grounds that it was satisfied the applicant was a fit and proper person to be granted such a licence.

 

Reasons

 

5.     The applicant was convicted of offences as follows:

 

i.       23 December 1991- Convicted of eleven offences, including multiple counts of Taking Conveyance Without Authority (Theft Act 1968 S.12(1)), Reckless Driving (Road Traffic Act 1972 S.2), and Possessing Controlled Drugs (Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 S.5(2)) - Sentenced to 3 months in a Young Offenders Institution, concurrent sentences, driving licence endorsed.

ii.      3 February 1993 - Convicted of seven offences, including Taking Conveyance Without Authority and Driving Whilst Disqualified-  Sentenced to 12 months Probation order subsequently varied and revoked following further offences, driving licence endorsed.

iii.     4 October 1993 - Convicted of six offences, including Criminal Damage Endangering Life (Criminal Damage Act 1971 S.1(2)) and Driving Whilst Disqualified - Sentenced to 30 months in a Young Offenders Institution, concurrent, Disqualification from Driving for 3 years.

iv.    23 June 1995 - Convicted of Aggravated Vehicle Taking on Theft Act 1968 S.12(A)- Sentenced to 9 months in a Young Offenders Institution and 12 month disqualification from driving.

v.      29 June 1995- Convicted of two offences of Driving Whilst Disqualified-  Sentenced to 6 months in a Young Offenders Institution, concurrent driving licence endorsed.

vi.    10 June 1997- Convicted of two offences, including Taking a Motor Vehicle Without Consent (Theft Act 1968 S.12(1))- Sentenced to 5 months imprisonment concurrent and Disqualification from Driving for 2 years.

vii.   26 September 1997- Convicted of two offences of Being carried in Vehicle taken without consent and driven dangerously on Theft Act 1968 S.12A(1) and S. (4) as well as Theft of Vehicle on Theft Act- Sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, concurrent.

viii. 5 May 1998- Convicted of three offences, including Theft of Vehicle (Theft Act 1968 S.1) and Driving Whilst Disqualified – Sentenced to Imprisonment 4 months Concurrent sentenced to 18 months imprisonment (consecutive), disqualified from driving for 3 years.

ix.    11 March 2025- Convicted of one offence: Knowingly Failing to Cause Regular Attendance at School of a Registered Pupil (Education Act 1996 S.444(1A)) – Fined £120, ordered to pay £100 in costs and a £48 victim surcharge.

 

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

 

7.     A person with a conviction, caution, reprimand or final warning issued by the Police, may not be permanently barred from obtaining a licence but should be expected to remain free from conviction or incident for an appropriate period, set out in the Policy.

 

8.     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. Theft and taking a vehicle without consent were considered dishonesty offence’s as per the Policy.

 

9.     For a new application an applicant must produce adequate information that he was a fit and proper person to hold a licence. Simply remaining conviction free may not generally be regarded as adequate evidence that an applicant was a fit and person to hold a licence.

 

10.  If offences had been committed the Council would consider the nature of the offence, the age of the conviction, the age of the applicant when convicted, the sentence imposed and any other relevant factors.

 

11.  The application was made for the grant of a Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence on 12 February 2025.

 

12.  In the application form, the applicant answered “PRE 2000 - Robbery of Motor Vehicles.” to having any cautions, criminal convictions or being aware of any enquiries or investigations by the Police or Local Authority. The applicant provided his DBS Disclosure Certificate which showed the aforementioned convictions.

 

13.  Licensing Officers questioned the applicant on the offences in an interview and the Applicant provided a detailed explanation of past convictions, primarily occurring between the ages of 16 and 23. These offences included vehicle-related crimes, drug possession, and driving offences, often influenced by negative peer associations and a difficult environment. The individual served multiple sentences in Young Offenders Institutions and later in prison, with the final custodial sentence in 1998 marking a turning point in his life.

 

14.  With regard to the last offence, the applicant explained it was not included in his application due to the timing of the court case.

 

15.  The applicant explained that since then, they had remained offence-free for 27 years, save for the latest offence, rebuilt their life, and raised a family of four children. The applicant regained his driving licence in 2015 after passing an extended test and had taken driving seriously since. The applicant further detailed that his self-employment ended in December 2024 due to financial strain, making this licence application vital for supporting his family.

 

16.  During the committee hearing, the applicant expressed that he was eager for the opportunity to become a licenced taxi driver.

 

17.  During the committee hearing, when questioned about the non-attendance offence, the applicant provided mitigating circumstances, explaining that his son had been experiencing bullying, which contributed to his refusal to attend school. The applicant stated that he had actively cooperated with the school and relevant professionals in efforts to resolve the issue, but these interventions were unsuccessful. He emphasised that he had made genuine attempts to encourage his son to attend, but his son consistently refused.

 

18.  When asked about the convictions prior to 1998, the applicant explained that these offences occurred during a time when he was young, naive, and easily influenced. He acknowledged that the environment he was in and the people he associated with had a negative impact on his decisions. However, he reminded the Committee that these events took place in his youth and did not reflect the person he was today.

 

19.  The Committee considered there were good reasons to depart from the Policy in this case.

 

20.  The Committee accepted the applicant’s account of his previous convictions. While acknowledging the seriousness of the offences, they commended the applicant for turning his life around and demonstrating a clear willingness to take responsibility, including completing the extended driving test.

 

21.  The Committee considered that, while the most recent offence remained a criminal matter, it was concerning his child’s refusal to go to school and not the applicant’s behaviour, as well as being dealt with by way of a financial penalty. Members concluded that this offence did not prevent the Applicant from being regarded as a fit and proper person.

 

22.  The Committee determined that the applicant’s offences were extremely dated and that he had clearly changed his life around since his last prison sentence in 1998.

 

23.  The Committee therefore, for the reasons above determined that the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a licence in Middlesbrough and therefore decided to grant the licence.

 

24.  The overriding duty and aim of the Council was to protect the public. The Committee did not see the applicant as a risk to the public, but rather they considered the applicant a fit and proper person to hold a licence and decided to grant the licence.