Agenda item

The Director of Environment and Community Services submitted an exempt report in connection with the review of Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref: 34/25, 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 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 driver appeared before Members for review of his licence due to information received on 9 September 2025 from an off-duty Chief Inspector at Cleveland Police in relation to an incident on 7 September 2025.

 

The report detailed the driver’s history and showed that he first applied to Middlesbrough Council for a Private Hire Vehicle driver licence in June 2014.  Due to information disclosed at the time, his application was referred to the Licensing Committee on 11 August 2014, when his licence was granted.

 

It was highlighted that, on 1 October 2021, the driver had notified the Licensing Department that he had received six penalty points on his DVLA licence for poor driving standards.  On 22 October 2021, the driver completed a driver improvement scheme which included additional training around road traffic conditions, speed limits and road signs.

 

On 12 May 2023, Officers suspended the driver’s licence due to concerns around his health in accordance with the DVLA Medical Group 2 Standards, the details of which were outlined in a letter attached at Appendix 1.

 

Officers contacted the driver on 1 June 2023 regarding a letter received from his GP.  As Officers were satisfied that all matters leading to the suspension had been resolved, and as a result of the information contained in the letter from his GP, the suspension was lifted that same day.

 

The driver now appeared before Members in relation to an incident on 7 September 2025 which was reported to the Licensing Department by an off-duty Police Chief Inspector.  The Chief Inspector had observed the driver, sitting in the driver’s seat of his taxi, parked in a public parking space, with another male in the passenger seat.  Both appeared to be inhaling what he believed to be Nitrous Oxide from balloons.

 

The Chief Inspector provided the Licensing Department with a statement and photographs of the driver and his vehicle.  These were attached at Appendix 2.

 

The driver was invited to attend an interview with Licensing Officers on 17 September 2025 but Officers were subsequently informed that he was unable to attend as he had been the victim of an assault.  A further appointment was made and the driver was interviewed on 19 September 2025 when he provided explanations in relation to the incident on 7 September and the assault on 17 September 2025.  He confirmed that there were no outstanding matters of which the Council was unaware. 

 

In relation to the incident on 7 September, the driver stated that he was not working at the time and had picked up a male who was known to him to give him a lift to his family’s house.  After travelling a short distance, the male began filling balloons with Nitrous Oxide.  The driver parked his vehicle in a public parking space and stated that he began to help the male to blow up the balloons.  The front vehicle window was open and they were playing music.  When advised about the complaint made against him by a trained professional who was able to identify nitrous oxide abuse, the driver conceded that the behaviours demonstrated by himself and the other male may have appeared questionable, however, maintained that he was not inhaling the gas himself.

 

The driver refused to name the other male and offered to undergo a drugs test.  The driver completed a negative drugs test on 25 September 2025, however, it was highlighted that nitrous oxide was not detectable on a routine drugs test.

 

In relation to the assault against the driver on 17 September, he stated that he had just returned home from working in his taxi when two males appeared and got into the rear of his vehicle asking for a lift to a late-night garage.  One of the males was the same male involved in the incident on 7 September.  The other male was unknown to the driver and had remained in the vehicle whilst the other male went to buy alcohol at the garage.  When the first male got back into the vehicle, the driver stated that whilst driving, without warning, the unknown male attacked him from the rear with a large nitrous oxide cannister and hit him about the head.  The driver stated that both males had been inhaling the nitrous oxide during the journey.  The driver stopped his vehicle within the grounds of the hospital and fled the vehicle in fear for his safety.  The driver had run to the hospital where he was helped by security staff and received medical attention.  When he returned to his vehicle, the rear windows had been vandalised.  He had called the Police who were investigating the assault and vehicle damage.

 

The driver confirmed the content of the report as being an accurate representation of the facts, however, stated that the description of the second male who had assaulted him, was incorrect.

 

At this point, the witness joined the meeting.  The Chief Inspector confirmed the contents of his statement as being correct and provided Members with his version of events in relation to the incident on 7 September and responded to questions from Members, the driver and the Council’s Legal Representative.  It was confirmed that there were no further questions and the Chief Inspector left the meeting.

 

The driver was invited to address the Committee in support of his case and responded to questions from Members of the Committee, the Licensing Manager and the Council’s Legal Representative. 

 

It was confirmed that there were no further questions and the driver, 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 review. 

 

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 Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref No: 34/25, be revoked, with immediate effect, as follows:-

 

Authority to Act

 

1.     Under Section 61 of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976 (“the Act”) the Committee may revoke or suspend 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.     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.

 

3.     The Committee considered Section 61 of the Act, the Middlesbrough Council Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Policy 2022 (“the Policy”), the report, the account of the witness and representations made by the driver.

 

4.     The review of the licence was considered on its own particular facts and on its merits.

 

Decision

 

5.     After carefully considering all of the information, the Licensing Committee decided to revoke the driver’s Private Hire Vehicle driver licence on the grounds of any other reasonable cause.  It decided that the revocation was to have immediate effect in the interests of public safety under section 61(2B) of the Act. 

 

Reasons

 

6.     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.

 

7.     The Policy confirmed that criminal convictions were not the only criteria used when considering whether an individual was a fit and proper person to be licensed.  The Council could consider circumstances of concern even though a conviction had not been obtained or the conduct did not amount to a criminal offence.  In assessing the action to take, the safety of the travelling public must be the paramount concern.

 

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

 

9.     The driver first applied for a licence on 9 June 2014 and, due to information disclosed at the time, the application was referred to the Licensing Committee.  On that occasion the Committee determined that the driver was a fit and proper person and, therefore, granted the licence on 11 August 2014.

 

10.  On 1 October 2021, the driver contacted Licensing Officers to advise that he had received six points endorsed on his DVLA licence for poor driving standards.  As a result, the driver was required to attend a driver improvement scheme.

 

11.  On 12 May 2023, the driver’s Private Hire Vehicle licence was suspended due to concerns around his health and following guidance taken from the Medical Group 2 DVLA Standards.  On 1 June 2023, following receipt of a letter from the driver’s GP, Licensing Officers were satisfied that the suspension could be lifted.

 

12.  On 9 September 2025, the Licensing Department received a report from a Chief Inspector of Cleveland Police.  The report related to an incident whereby the Chief Inspector, whilst off duty, had witnessed the driver and passenger of a Private Hire Vehicle (confirmed as being the driver’s vehicle - registration supplied), holding inflated balloons between their lips, inhaling what he believed to be Nitrous Oxide from the balloons.

 

13.  The Chief Inspector provided a witness statement and exhibited two photographs he had taken, showing the individuals involved.

 

14.  The driver was invited to attend an interview scheduled for 17 September 2025, however, on the day of the scheduled interview, Officers were contacted by the driver’s mother informing them that the driver could no longer attend as he had been the victim of an assault.  The Licensing Department received information from the driver’s Operator, the same day, confirming their knowledge and information of the assault.

 

15.  On 19 September 2025, the driver attended an interview with Licensing Officers.  A full summary of the interview was contained in the Committee report.  The driver admitted to Officers that he was sat in the driver’s seat of the vehicle observed by the Chief Inspector.

 

16.  The driver stated that he had picked up the individual, who he believed to be homeless.  The driver stated he was not working at the time and stated that whilst they were parked up talking, the individual began to fill balloons with nitrous oxide and inhale them.  The driver stated he was not inhaling them but that he was blowing the balloons up to stretch them out so that they did not pop when being filled with nitrous oxide.  The driver refused to provide the name of the passenger and when questioned why, stated “I just don’t want to say his name”.

 

17.  The driver reiterated that he was not inhaling nitrous oxide and that he was not a drug user.  The driver completed a drugs test which was confirmed as negative, however, nitrous oxide was undetectable on a routine drugs test.

 

18.  The driver then provided an account of the incident that occurred on 17 September 2025.  The driver stated that, following work, he had arrived at his home address when two men jumped out from the bushes and entered the rear of his vehicle.  One of the males was the passenger from the 7 September 2025 incident and the driver stated he did not know the other individual.

 

19.  The driver stated that the males requested to be taken to buy alcohol and as he feared the males would disturb his family, he agreed to the request.  During the journey the passengers were inhaling nitrous oxide.  The driver stated that following the shop visit he was driving towards Marton Road, when the unknown male attacked him without warning.  The driver stated he was hit approximately six times with the nitrous oxide cannister.

 

20.  The driver stated he stopped his vehicle in Roseberry Park and fled due being fearful for his life. He received medical treatment which involved having sutures, and when he returned to his vehicle the rear windows had been vandalised.  The driver reported the incident to the Police.

 

21.  At the Committee hearing, when questioned if the Committee report was accepted as a true reflection, the driver stated that he had found an error.  When asked what the error was, he stated that he did not inform Licensing Officers in interview that the unknown male was around 50 years old.

 

22.  The Committee heard from the Chief Inspector who provided a first-hand account of what he had witnessed.  He confirmed his statement and clarified that he saw the driver with a balloon to his lips.  He stated that whilst he could not be sure the driver was inhaling from the balloons, the situation and circumstances associated led him to believe that the two individuals were inhaling nitrous oxide.

 

23.  The driver informed the Committee that he had no previous complaints about his driving or character since he started driving taxis in 2014 and that the drugs test he had completed was negative.  The driver also reiterated the account he had given in his interview, contained within the report.

 

24.  When asked by the Committee why he had not asked the individual to leave his vehicle when he had begun to inhale nitrous oxide, the driver stated that the passenger was known to him as being temperamental and that he was fearful.  When further asked why he would go out of his way to pick up a person he was fearful of, the driver responded stating that the individual was crying and visibly upset, so he wanted to take him home.

 

25.  The Committee queried whether he could see the individual carrying a cannister, as cannisters are noticeably large.  The driver responded and recalled that the individual had it concealed up his clothing.  He was asked why he would then drive to a library and park up, but the driver stated he did not know where else to go as the passenger’s family had said he could not return home.

 

26.  The Committee queried the second incident and asked why the driver would report the incident to the Police but refuse to give the names of those involved.  The driver stated he could not provide the Police with the name of the passenger he knew as he feared for his life and feared reprisals.

 

27.  The Committee found the driver’s demeanour and attitude at the hearing to be poor and confrontational.  On occasion, the driver became agitated about being asked certain questions and his answers to those questions were short and hostile.

 

28.  The Committee found the Chief Inspector to be a credible witness and found that the evidence he gave was clear and concise.  The Committee further found the photographs provided, showing the driver with an inflated balloon to his lips, to be extremely useful in supporting the account provided by the witness.

 

29.  The Committee determined that the driver was not a fit and proper person.  The Committee found that the driver’s account was unlikely and considered that there appeared to be a link between the driver and the passenger that went further than what the driver had identified.  The Committee did not believe that the driver was being completely honest.

 

30.  The Committee was extremely concerned regarding the nitrous oxide incident and believed that it was more likely than not that the driver had engaged in that behaviour.  At the very least, if the driver’s version of events was accepted by the Committee, which it was not, the Committee was appalled that the driver would openly be sat outside of a public library in his marked vehicle with an individual who was engaging in drug activity, assisting the individual with the commissioning of this act.  The Committee discussed the public perception of a driver involved in this behaviour. The driver was brazen, with his windows open and playing loud music.

 

31.  The Committee was also extremely alarmed by who he associated with.  The Committee was fearful that a member of the public could be a passenger in his vehicle and an incident could happen whereby associates jumped into the car.  The Committee found that it would not feel comfortable allowing a loved one, or someone for whom they cared for, in the taxi with this driver.

 

32.  The Committee found it difficult to accept that the driver would fail to name one of the attacker’s associates, who he admitted to knowing.  The Committee felt that should an incident arise, and a passenger was injured, they would not have confidence that the driver would properly report this to the Police.

 

33.  The Committee also gave consideration to the driver’s regulatory history and noted that he had received six points in the past for poor driving standards.

 

34.  The Committee felt that the driver failed to accept any responsibility for the incident on 7 September 2025 and instead appeared to make excuses and not tell the whole truth.

 

35.  In line with the Policy, the Committee deemed that due to the incidents, specifically the involvement in and probably partaking in drug taking, the driver was not a ‘fit and proper’ person and, therefore, the decision was made to revoke the driver’s licence with immediate effect for the safety of the public.

 

36.  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, TS1 2AS.

 

37.  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.