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: 36/25, 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, 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 due to convictions at 1) in the submitted report.

 

The applicant was interviewed by Licensing Officers on 3 September 2025.  During the interview the applicant confirmed that there were no outstanding matters of which the Council was unaware. 

 

In relation to the convictions at 1), the applicant explained that on 1 January 2021, he had been at a friend’s house and, whilst driving home, at approximately 02:00, he was followed and subsequently stopped by the Police.  The Police Officer informed him that he had been stopped due to the manner of his breaking and initially thought he was a food delivery driver.

 

The applicant reported that he provided his details and driving licence and undertook a breathalyser test.  He claimed that the Police Officer became forceful and requested a second test, at which point he panicked and fled, returning to his friend’s house and leaving his car behind.

 

At approximately 04:00 the Police Officer attended the applicant’s home address and spoke to his mother, requesting that that the applicant contact him upon his return.  The applicant stated that he later called the Police Officer, who was off duty, and they agreed to meet in four days when the Police Officer returned to work.  The applicant attended the police station as agreed and admitted, due to the police officer’s attitude with his mother, he displayed some attitude during the meeting.  He stated that he was not arrested at the time and could not recall being charged or informed of prosecution. 

 

In May 2021, the applicant received a letter from the Magistrates Court requiring him to attend a hearing.  At the hearing, he was advised that the matter was serious and would be referred to Crown Court.  At Crown Court, the police officer alleged that the applicant had evaded police for four days, which the applicant disputed, providing text messages showing he had agreed to attend the police station once the Police Officer was back on duty.  The applicant stated that the Crown Court imposed a 12-month driving ban because he had evaded custody, despite not being prosecuted for drink driving.  He expressed regret for running away, explaining that he panicked at the time.

 

The applicant also advised that he was currently unemployed and wished to become a taxi driver because he enjoyed driving, wanted to work independently, and preferred flexible hours.

 

Following the interview, the Licensing Officer conducted an internet search regarding the applicant’s Crown Court case.  This revealed several newspaper articles reporting that the applicant had failed a breathalyser test with a reading of 82 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath, more than twice the legal limit.  Reports stated that the applicant had told Police Officers he had only consumed half a pint of beer.  After being placed in a police vehicle, he fled while the Police Officer secured his car.  The Police Officer attempted to locate him at his home address without success and returned at 04:00, but the applicant was still absent.  He was arrested on 5 January 2021 when Police Officers returned to his home.  The applicant reportedly told the Police he could not explain his actions on the night he fled.  He pleaded guilty to escaping lawful custody and was sentenced to five months in a young offender’s institute, suspended for eighteen months.  He was also banned from driving for twelve months and ordered to complete 150 hours of unpaid work.

 

On 4 September 2025, a Licensing Officer contacted the applicant to discuss the media reports.  When asked why he had not disclosed that he was twice over the legal limit, the applicant stated that the Police Officer had not informed him that he was over the limit but had ‘blown 82’.

 

The Licensing Officer advised the applicant that his application would be referred to the Licensing Committee to determine his suitability to hold a Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence and that given the circumstances there was a strong possibility of refusal.  The applicant confirmed that he wished to proceed with his application.

 

The applicant was invited to address the Committee in support of his application and admitted he had not been fully truthful during his initial interview with Licensing Officers.  The applicant responded to questions from Members, the Council’s Legal Representative and the Licensing Manager.

 

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 a full decision and reasons withing five working days.

 

ORDERED that the application for Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref No: 36/25, 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.

 

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

 

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.     On 25 May 2021, the applicant was convicted of escaping from lawful custody and sentenced to five months imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, as well as being disqualified from driving for 12 months, a victim surcharge of £128.00 and 150 hours unpaid work.

 

9.     The applicant was interviewed by Licensing Officers on 3 September 2025, a full summary of the interview was contained within the report.

 

10.  The applicant informed Officers during interview, that he had been travelling home from a friend’s house at around 2.00am on 1 January 2021 when a Police car pulled him over.  It was explained that he had been pulled over due to the manner of his braking.

 

11.  The applicant stated that he undertook a breathalyser test and passed but that the Police Officer had become forceful with him and asked him to do it again.  He informed Officers that at this point he panicked and ran away, returning to his friend’s house and leaving his vehicle at the scene.

 

12.  The applicant stated that at 4.00am the same day, the Officer had searched for him at his home address, speaking to his mother as the applicant was not in.  The applicant stated he was required to call the Officer back, which he did and he stated they agreed to meet in four days time when the Officer returned to duty.  The applicant stated he attended the Police Station four days later.

 

13.  The applicant stated he was not arrested at that time but was notified in writing at a later date that his case had been referred to the Crown Court, where he was sentenced as aforementioned.

 

14.  After the interview, Officers carried out an internet search on the individual and found an article in relation to the applicant’s offence.  It stated in the article that the applicant had failed a roadside breath test and was more than twice the legal limit, despite informing Police Officers he had only consumed half a pint of beer.

 

15.  Licensing Officers contacted the applicant again and questioned why he had failed to mention the above in his interview.  The applicant stated that the Police Officer had not informed him he was over the limit.  He was also asked why he had answered ‘no’ to having any previous convictions, the applicant was unable to provide an answer.

 

16.  At Committee, the applicant stated from the outset that he had lied to the Licensing Officers and that he had ‘smudged over’ certain aspects of the offence for which he was charged. The applicant apologised and stated that he came to Committee wanting to be fully honest about the circumstances leading to his arrest and sentence.

 

17.  The applicant accepted that he had been drink driving and had failed a breathalyser test.  He further stated that whilst he was in the back seat of the Police vehicle, he climbed to the front seats and exited through the front door before absconding.  The applicant stated he was not prosecuted for drink driving.

 

18.  The applicant informed the Committee that he regretted his actions that night and was apologetic for this.  He stated that he was from the town and knew the roads, attributing his love of driving as the reason he for making an application to become a licenced driver.  The applicant further informed the Committee that he was a people person with good manners and strong morals.

 

19.  Based on the evidence it was presented with, the Committee found that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to hold a Private Hire Vehicle driver licence in Middlesbrough. The Committee was extremely concerned that the applicant had lied on his application form as well as to Licensing Officers during his interview.  The Committee found that the applicant had numerous opportunities to be honest during the process but had not been.

 

20.  The Committee was further concerned as to the nature of the offence the applicant had been convicted of.  Not only had the applicant accepted that he was driving whilst over the limit, but he further fled the scene and escaped custody.

 

21.  Whilst the applicant did not have a conviction for drink driving, he did admit to driving whilst under the influence during the Committee hearing.  The Committee gave consideration to the Policy on drink driving convictions whereby it stated a licence would usually be refused until the applicant remained conviction free for at least seven years from completion of any sentence or driving ban.

 

22.  The decision to refuse to grant the licence was in accordance with the Policy and the Committee considered there were no good or exceptional reasons to depart from it.  The Committee, for the reasons above, could not be satisfied the applicant was a fit and proper person or safe and suitable to be licenced as a Private Hire Vehicle driver in Middlesbrough.

 

23.  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 Teesside Justice Centre, Teesside Magistrates Court, Victoria Square, Middlesbrough, TS1 2AS.

 

24.  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.