Agenda item

The Director of Environment and Community Services submitted an exempt report in connection with the application for Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref: 32/25, 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 attended the meeting, accompanied by his wife, verified his name and address and confirmed he had a copy of the report and understood its contents.

 

The Principal Public Protection Officer (Licensing) presented a summary of the report outlining that the applicant appeared before Members in relation to a conviction recorded against him at 1) in the report.

 

The report outlined that the applicant had a previous conviction dated 6 July 2022 for disqualification under the totting up procedure, resulting in a six-month driving disqualification.  Licensing Officers were made aware of the conviction through a routine DVLA driver licence enquiry.

 

The report noted that the applicant had failed to disclose the offence on their application.  The applicant was interviewed by Licensing Officers on 5 August 2025 and confirmed that there were no other outstanding matters of which the Council was unaware.

 

The applicant explained that they had been abroad for a period of nine months when the disqualification was issued and had not received the relevant correspondence.  They stated that post was delivered to a neighbour’s property, but the houses had an unusual numbering system, and sometimes mail was mixed up.  The neighbour, who also worked away, did not pass on the summons or fine notices.  The applicant stated that bailiffs later attended his parent’s house, who redirected the bailiffs to his wife’s address, and the fine was subsequently paid.

 

The applicant stated that he had been in shock when their application was refused because he was not aware of the conviction. 

 

A Member asked the applicant about the totting up procedure and noted that it required twelve penalty points to trigger disqualification.  The applicant stated that additional points may have come from a separate speeding offence when travelling to and from Grimsby.

 

A Member asked the whether the applicant had attempted to appeal the conviction.  The applicant stated that they had assumed the time to contest the offence had expired, as they were abroad when the summons was issued and the fine remained unpaid.

 

The applicant was invited to address the Committee in support of his application.

 

The applicant stated that they were no longer disqualified as the offence occurred three years previously.  He explained that he had previously held a taxi driver licence with the Council for many years and had worked in the trade alongside family members who had also been licensed operators.  He stated that that he previously maintained a good relationship with passengers and was well regarded by regular customers.  It was his intention to work on a semi-retired basis for approximately 30 hours per week and believed his previous experience as a taxi driver was beneficial.

 

It was confirmed that there were no further questions and the applicant, his wife, 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 Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref No: 33/25, 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 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 and his wife.

 

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 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.     On 6 July 2022, the applicant was disqualified from driving for six months under the totting up procedure; a TT99 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 an applicant for a driver’s licence had an endorsement in respect of a major traffic offence, then the application would normally be refused until at least five years after the most recent conviction, caution, reprimand, final warning or if the person was disqualified, after the restoration of their driving licence, whichever was the later.

 

8.     The policy confirmed that a TT99 offence was deemed a major traffic offence and confirmed that it signified a disqualification under totting-up procedure following receipt of twelve or more penalty points within a three year period.

 

9.     In accordance with the policy, and when considering the applicant’s disqualification, the relevant period for the applicant to remain conviction free will end on 6 January 2028.

 

10. The applicant, when completing the application form, failed to disclose the offence to Licensing Officers and they were only made aware of the conviction because of a routine DVLA driver licence enquiry.

 

11. The applicant was interviewed by Licensing Officers on 5 August 2025.  A full summary of the interview was contained in the committee report.

 

12. The Applicant informed Licensing Officers that he had been working away in Denmark for a period of nine months at the time he had received the six-month disqualification and that he had not received any correspondence in relation to the driving offences due to mail delivery issues.

 

13. The applicant informed Licensing Officers that whilst he was working abroad, his sister had driven one of his vehicles and that whilst doing so, she had incurred the points for speeding. The applicant stated that the speeding had occurred as his sister was travelling North on the A19 towards the Tyne Tunnel. The applicant stated that the identity of the driver was wrongly noted as he had not received the correspondence.

 

14. The applicant stated that it was not until the bailiffs had visited his parent’s house that he became aware of the offence.  He stated that he had paid £1,200 in fines for the speeding ticket but that he was unaware of the additional penalty points or disqualification.

 

15. The applicant could not recall the circumstances behind the other motoring offences which led to his disqualification under the totting up procedure.

 

16. At the Committee meeting, the applicant stated that he had held a taxi licence previously for around twenty years but had chosen to go abroad to work for financial reasons.  He stated that this was the right time for him to return to taxi driving as he wanted to be closer to his family.

 

17. The Committee also heard from the applicant that there had been a longstanding issue with him receiving post. The applicant stated he often received neighbours’ post and vice versa. The applicant stated he had never received anything in relation to the speeding offence, or the disqualification.

 

18. When asked where the correspondence could have gone, the applicant believed it must have gone to his neighbour who also worked abroad and only returned home for two weeks during the Christmas period. 

 

19. When questioned around how he had received the other penalty points as part of the totting up procedure, the applicant stated that he could not remember. The applicant did reference a potential speeding offence on a trip to Grimsby and then again on the return from that trip but stated that he could not be sure this was the occurrence.

 

20. The applicant and his wife both stated that post often went unopened due to working abroad and that correspondence on fines and points could have been missed or not received.

 

21. The Committee noted that the applicant had an endorsement for a major traffic offence, and that in accordance with the policy an application would normally be refused for a period of five years.

 

22. The Committee found the explanations given by the applicant to be confused and evasive. The Committee could not understand how the applicant could not recall receiving any of the penalty points, nor could they understand how he did not have knowledge of a disqualification.

 

23. The Committee heard from the applicant that he had not received the post regarding the speeding but also heard that post often went unopened, which they believed was contradictory.

 

24. The Committee was clear that it could not go behind the disqualification and they felt the explanations given by the applicant did not satisfy it to depart from the policy.

 

25. The Committee believed the accumulation of twelve or more points, leading to a disqualification, showed that the applicant was not a fit and proper person or safe and suitable to be licensed as a private hire vehicle driver in Middlesbrough.

 

26. The Committee based, on the evidence it was presented with, decided there were no compelling, clear, good or exceptional reasons to depart from the policy and refused to grant the licence for the reasons set out above.

 

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

 

28. 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.