Minutes:
The Director of Environment and Community
Services submitted an exempt report in connection with the review of Combined Hackney
Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref: 31/25, where
circumstances had arisen which required special consideration by the Committee.
The Chair introduced those present and
outlined the procedure to be followed. The
driver, who attended the meeting, verified his name and address, and confirmed
he had received a copy of the report and understood its contents.
The Principal Public Protection Officer
(Licensing) presented a summary of the report outlining that the driver
appeared before Members in relation to a conviction recorded against him at 1)
in the report.
Council
records indicated that the driver had been licensed with the Council since
1998, holding a Combined Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence.
This licence was scheduled to expire on 31 November 2025.
In
January 2025, Licensing Officers became aware that the licence holder had not
signed up to the DBS Update Service as required by the Council’s Taxi Licensing
Policy. A new DBS certificate was
subsequently obtained in April 2025, which revealed a conviction from December
2022 for being in charge of a dog dangerously out of control causing
injury. The offence related to an
incident in July 2021.
The
driver explained to Licensing Officers that the incident had occurred at
business premises shared with another individual. The dog involved was normally kept on the
premises as a guard dog. On the day of
the incident, the victim entered the unit early in the morning when it was
still dark. The driver stated that the
dog did not recognise the victim and attacked, resulting in injury. The police attended and the driver was
subsequently charged and appeared at the Magistrates Court where he pleaded
guilty. A suspended custodial sentence,
restraining order, compensation order, victim surcharge, and disqualification
from keeping animals were imposed.
The
driver stated that he had informed a Licensing Officer of the conviction at the
time by telephone, although there was no official record of the call. There was, however, evidence of previous
correspondence on 12 October 2024, indicating that the matter was known to the
Licensing Department.
On
30 September 2025, the Licensing Manager contacted the driver to clarify the
circumstances surrounding the restraining order. The driver denied any harassment and
explained that he no longer operated a business from the premises concerned.
A
Member asked the Licensing Manager for clarification on the DBS Update Service,
specifically how long the service remains active and how notifications of
convictions are received. The Licensing
Manager explained that if a subscription to the Update Service is not renewed
by the license holder, a new DBS application is required. It was further explained that if the
subscription lapses, the Licensing Department would not be notified of any new
convictions until a new DBS certificate was obtained.
A
Member asked the driver how long the victim had known the dog involved in the
incident. The driver responded that it
had been approximately four years and explained that the dog belonged to a
family member. A Member also asked about
the restraining order and harassment, and the driver stated he was unsure why
that conviction was imposed but believed it may have been connected to sharing
the business unit with the victim.
The
driver was invited to speak in support of their review. He stated that he had been a licensed driver
since 1998 and currently worked as an executive driver for a private hire
operator. He highlighted that he had
maintained high passenger ratings and had not encountered any issues during the
time he held a licence.
Subsequently, all parties returned, and the Chair announced a summary of the Committee’s decision and highlighted that the driver would receive the full decision and reasons within five working days.
ORDERED that Combined Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref No: 31/25, be revoked with immediate effect, as follows:-
·
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.
Under Section
61(2B) of the Act, if it appeared to be in the interests of public safety, the
Committee could decide that the revocation was to have immediate effect.
Decision
4.
After carefully considering all the information the Licensing Committee
decided to revoke the driver’s Combined Hackney Carriage and Private Hire
Vehicle Driver Licence, on the grounds of any other reasonable cause. It was decided that the revocation was to
have immediate effect in the interests of public safety under section 61(2B) of
the Act.
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
Council’s duty was to ensure, so far as possible, its licensed drivers and
private hire operators were fit and proper people to hold such a position of
trust. This involved a detailed assessment of an applicant or licensee’s
character.
7. A
licence would normally be refused where an applicant had a conviction for an
offence of violence against a person, or connected with any offence of
violence, until a period of at least ten years free of such conviction had
elapsed and since the completion of any sentence imposed.
8. On
9 December 2022, the driver was convicted of being the owner/person in charge
of dog dangerously out of control causing injury on 13 July 2021, contrary to
section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
9. The
driver was sentenced to imprisonment of 15 months wholly suspended for 2 years,
a victim surcharge of £156.00, disqualification relating to animals for 5
years, a restraining order protecting the victim from harassment until 12
January 2028 and compensation of £100.00.
10. The
driver was licensed with Middlesbrough Council since 1998. He currently held a combined hackney carriage
and private hire vehicle licence which was due to expire on 30 November 2025.
11. Officers
became aware that the driver had not signed up to the DBS update service as
required by the Policy and, as a result, contacted the driver to request a new
DBS certificate and that the driver sign up to the service. The driver provided an up-to-date DBS in
April 2025 which listed the mentioned offence.
12. The
driver was interviewed by Licensing Officers in relation to the offence. A full summary of the interview was contained
in the Committee report.
13. The
driver stated that an incident occurred on 9 December 2022 at his shared
business unit on Bishop Street, Middlesbrough. The driver’s son owned a Cane
Corso dog which was normally kept chained in the driver’s part of the unit to
act as a guard dog.
14. The
individual that the driver shared the unit with, entered unusually early one
morning and as it was dark the dog did not recognise the individual and
attacked him. The victim had to attend hospital
and received stitches to his hand.
15. The
victim subsequently called the police and informed them that the dog was not
trained. The driver was notified by the
police that as he was the business owner and had attended the unit to tie the
dog, he was responsible for the offence.
16. When
asked why he had not reported the incident, the driver stated that he had
contacted the Licensing Office and spoke with one of the Licensing Officers. He stated that he had informed the Licensing
Officer of the offence, who in turn stated that it would be investigated, and
someone would get back to him. Unfortunately,
there was no record of this call, and the Licensing Department were unable to
verify this account as the Licensing Officer that the driver spoke to had since
passed away. There was correspondence
between the Licensing Officer and the driver on 12 October 2024, to suggest
awareness of the conviction.
17. Licensing
Officers further queried the restraining order aspect of the sentence; however,
the driver was unable to provide a comprehensive explanation, stating that he
believed it was because they shared the same unit. He denied harassing the
victim.
18. At
the Licensing Committee meeting, the driver stated that he had been a driver
since around 1998 and that he had received no complaints or convictions. He
further stated he was working as an Uber Executive driver and had a 4.9 out of
5 rating. He informed the Committee that his car was valuable and worth around
£60,000 and this is why he only did Executive work.
19. The
driver stated that the police reports clarified that the incident was an
accident. The dog was a guard dog for
the unit following break-in attempts but was usually tied up. It was this one occasion when the dog had become
loose and attacked the victim. The driver
further informed the Committee that the victim had been familiar with the dog
for around four years and there had been no issues previously.
20. When
asked further on the restraining order aspect of the sentence, the driver could
not offer anything further than what he had said in his interview with
Licensing Officers and simply stated that it was probably made as the victim
did not want to share the unit with him anymore. The driver was asked if he had any issues with
the victim in the past, to which he responded no, and they were not on bad
terms.
21. The
Committee asked what had happened to the dog after the attack and the driver responded
he was not sure. He believed his son had
sold the dog.
22. The
Committee was particularly concerned about the restraining order that was imposed
on the driver and, following answers by the driver, the concerns were not
alleviated. The Committee considered
whether there had been an underlying issue between the victim and the driver.
23. The
Committee further considered the sentencing guidelines for the offence and
determined that there must have been factors increasing seriousness due to the
higher sentence that the driver received.
24. The
Committee was also concerned about the driver’s version of events, believing
his answer regarding whether the dog was tied up or not was unclear. The driver
stated the dog was a guard dog but was tied up and that it was unfortunate on
that occasion that the dog had escaped. The
Committee found that explanation difficult to understand and queried why a
guard dog would be permanently tied up.
25. The
Committee was concerned with the driver’s answer around what happened to the
dog. They found this to be vague when he
stated that he was not sure, but that he believed the dog had been sold.
26. The
Committee found that this was a violent offence, and that the injuries the
victim suffered were serious. The Policy stated that a licence will normally be
refused where the driver had a conviction for an offence of violence against
the person or connected with any offence of violence until a period of at least
ten years free of such conviction has elapsed since the completion of any
sentence imposed.
27. The
Committee believed that there was a necessity to consider public safety and
that the offence was a very big concern. The Committee found that the driver was not a
‘fit and proper’ person and, therefore, the decision was made to revoke the
licence with immediate effect for the safety of the public.
28. If
the driver 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.
29. If
the driver 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 driver which could be in the region of £1,000.
Supporting documents: