Agenda item

The Corporate Director of Regeneration and Housing submitted an exempt report in connection with an application for a Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref: 2/26, 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 Principal Licensing Officer presented a summary of the report stating that the driver appeared before Members as a result of the offences detailed at 1) to 5) in the submitted report.

 

The applicant was previously licensed with Middlesbrough Council from January 2016 until January 2025 when his licence was revoked, with immediate effect, by Officers, following his disqualification from driving.  A copy of the revocation letter was attached at Appendix 1.

 

The applicant was interviewed by Licensing Officers on 22 January 2026, when he confirmed that there were no outstanding matters of which the Council was unaware.  It was highlighted that, prior to interview, the applicant was reminded of the Council’s Policy in relation to disqualification from driving and that an application would not normally be considered until a DVLA licence had been restored and there was a conviction-free period of at least five years.  The applicant confirmed he was aware of this but still wished to proceed with his application.

 

During the interview, the applicant offered explanations for the offences detailed at 1) to 5). 

 

The report also highlighted two further relevant incidents.  In May 2018 a complaint was received from a member of the public who observed the driver mounting the pavement in his Private Hire vehicle and proceeding to drive along a pedestrianised area before parking his car.  As a result of the incident, the driver was issued with a warning and ordered to complete a Driver Awareness Course which he completed in October 2018.  A copy of the warning letter was attached at Appendix 4.

 

In November 2018, the driver was issued with a warning regarding use of inappropriate, offensive language to a passenger.  A copy of the letter was attached at Appendix 5, however, there were no further details on Council record relating to the incident.

 

The report also highlighted that, in June 2025 when the applicant submitted his fresh application, he failed to declare any previous criminal or motoring convictions.  In addition, when asked whether he had any previous licences suspended, revoked or refused, he replied ‘no’.  When this was queried later by Officers, he stated he had not consciously intended to conceal his record.

 

The applicant confirmed the content of the report as being an accurate representation of the facts, and was invited to address the Committee in support of his application.  The applicant 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 Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref No: 2/26, 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 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.

 

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 applicant was referred to Licensing Committee as a result of his previous convictions detailed as follows:

 

•         04/09/2016 – Speeding (SP30) – FPN and 3 Points 

•         24/01/2021 – Speeding (SP30) – FPN and 3 Points

•         07/11/2021 – Speeding (SP30) – FPN and 3 Points

•         20/05/2024 – No Insurance – FPN, 6 Points and £300 Fine

•         05/12/2024 – Speeding (SP30) & Totting up 13 Points – 6 Month Driving Ban and £350.00 Fine.

 

6.      On 8 May 2018, the applicant was the subject of a complaint from a member of public regarding his driving standards.  The applicant was issued a warning and asked to complete a Driver Awareness Course.

 

7.      On 4 November 2018 the applicant was issued with a warning due to using inappropriate and offensive language to a passenger.

 

8.      On 5 December 2024, the applicant was disqualified from driving for six months under the totting up procedure, (a TT99 offence).

 

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

 

10.  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 will 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.

 

11.  The Policy confirmed that a TT99 offence was deemed a major traffic offence and confirmed that it signified a disqualification under the totting-up procedure following receipt of 12 or more penalty points within a three year period.

 

12.  The Policy further stated that if an applicant had a significant history of offences, showing a disregard for safety or had been disqualified, for example through the totting up process, an application would not normally be considered until their DVLA licence had been restored and a conviction free period of at least five years, depending on the severity of the risk, had lapsed since the date of conviction or reinstatement of the DVLA Licence, whichever was the latter.

 

13.  In accordance with the Policy, and when considering the applicant’s disqualification, the relevant period for the applicant to remain conviction free would end on 6 June 2030.

 

14.  The applicant was previously licensed as a Combined Private Hire Vehicle and Hackney Carriage driver from 14 January 2016 until 17 January 2025 when his licence was revoked by Officers, with immediate effect, as a result of his disqualification from driving.

 

15.  The applicant was interviewed, for this application process, by Licensing Officers on 22 January 2026, a full summary of the interview was contained in the committee report.

 

16.  During interview, the applicant explained the offences listed above.  In relation to the offences listed at 1, 2 and 3 above, the applicant could not fully recall the circumstances.  In relation to offence at number 4, the applicant stated he was stopped by Police whilst using his father’s vehicle.  He believed he was insured under his father’s policy but that actually he was not.  In relation to offence number 5, the applicant stated he could not remember the specific location but that he was travelling around 40mph in a 30mph zone due to being unfamiliar with the speed limits.

 

17.  During the Committee hearing, the Licensing Officer clarified that the applicant failed to notify the Licensing Department within 48 hours as required by the Policy, when he was disqualified.  The applicant emailed the Licensing Department on 10 December 2024 whereas he was disqualified on 5 December 2024.

 

18.  The applicant informed the Committee that having a licence would help him care for his son who suffered a major brain injury following a hit and run incident.

 

19.  The applicant stated he would be able to work when he wanted to and could be involved more in day-to-day care for his son.

 

20.  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.

 

21.  The Committee determined that the applicant had shown a clear propensity to offend having been convicted of speeding on four separate occasions over a period of time as well as an insurance offence, and believed that on balance, it was likely he would continue to do so.

 

22.  The Committee found the interview explanations, when reading them, to be evasive. The Committee further believed that the applicant had failed to take accountability for his continual driving offences.

 

23.  The Committee found it unacceptable that the applicant had failed to notify Licensing Officers within 48 hours of his disqualification.

 

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

 

25.  The Committee determined that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to be licensed as a taxi driver in Middlesbrough.

 

26.  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 the Teesside Justice Centre, Teesside Magistrates, Victoria Square, Middlesbrough.

 

27.  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.