Agenda item

The Corporate Director of Regeneration and Housing submitted an exempt report in connection with the review of Combined Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref: 05/26, where circumstances had arisen which required special consideration by the Committee.

 

The Chair introduced those present and outlined the procedure to be followed.  The driver, who was in attendance at the meeting accompanied by his legal representative, 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 for review of his licence due to concerns regarding his honesty as a result of his alleged fraudulent actions.

 

It was noted that the driver had been licensed with Middlesbrough Council since November 2023, with his current licence due to expire on 31 October 2026.

 

The circumstances of the matter were that, on 14 January 2026, the Licensing Manager received an email from the Council’s Legal Services stating that they had been notified by the Council’s Integrated Transport Unit (ITU) that the driver had been contracted to undertake home to school transport runs and had submitted invoices for journeys that were not carried out, totalling more than £3,000.

 

Following receipt of this email, the Licensing Manager made further enquiries with the ITU and queried whether the matter had been reported to the Police.

 

On 15 January 2026, the Licensing Manager received an email from the ITU’s Independent Needs Assessor in response to his enquiries.  It was confirmed that the matter had been reported to the Police who stated they would not be dealing with the matter and it should, instead, be referred to the Council’s Trading Standards department.  The email provided an Overview of the details and requirements of the driver’s school run contract which commenced on 3 September 2025 and this was attached at Appendix 1, in addition to a summary provided in the submitted report. 

 

A letter, dated 26 November 2025, from the ITU to the driver, confirming the termination of his home to school transport contract was attached at Appendix 2.

 

The driver, accompanied by his wife, was interviewed by Licensing Officers on 17 February 2026, when he confirmed that he had carried out the specific home to school contract from 3 September 2025 to 19 November 2025 and that he had invoiced the ITU, in full, during this period.  He also confirmed that he had been informed by the ITU that the invoices should not have been submitted and needed to be repaid.  The driver stated he had initially paid the money back in instalments but had now paid the amount owed in full.

 

The driver explained that although he had undertaken home to school transport work previously, he had done so for an operator and that this had been his first time undertaking the contract directly with the ITU.  He stated that he did not fully understand the invoicing process for the contract and, due to this uncertainty, had contacted the ITU by email and telephone, to seek clarification.

 

The driver provided Officers with screen shots of call logs from his mobile showing a total of 12 calls being made to the ITU between 30 September and 23 October 2025.  Copies of the call logs were attached at Appendix 3, together with email correspondence between himself and the ITU.

 

During interview, the driver provided a full account of events and this was detailed in the report.  He also confirmed that he undertook a total of 12 journeys with the passenger.

Following the interview, in view of comments made by the driver, Licensing Officers raised several queries with the ITU.  Details of the emails exchanged on 18 February 2026, between Licensing Officers and the ITU, were set out in the report.  The ITU responded that no contact was made by the driver and that they had no record of any calls being made to them.

 

On 2 March 2026, further correspondence from Licensing Officers to the driver requesting a screenshot of the driver’s call logs showing the actual telephone number dialled  and copies of all original emails between the driver and ITU.  These were provided by the driver on 3 March 2026 and were attached at Appendix 4.  Full details of the driver’s response was outlined in the report.

 

On 4 March 2026, the Licensing Officer again emailed the ITU seeking further clarification regarding details of the dates, times and duration of calls made by the driver to the general ITU telephone number which he stated had been in relation to the non-attendance of the passenger and also in relation to the email sent to the driver by a member of ITU staff stating that the route would recommence on 17 September.

 

A response was sent on 5 March 2026 stating that the ITU was unable to record telephone calls, therefore, it was not possible to confirm whether the calls made by the driver were in relation to the absence of the passenger.  When asked about the driver making calls to the general number, office staff stated he had not contacted them in relation to the absence of the passenger but had made several calls regarding payment delays when he first began the route.

 

With regard to the recommencement of the route on 17 September, it was stated that the member of staff who had sent the email no longer worked there so a definitive explanation could not be provided.  However, it was believed that the passenger’s grandparent who acted as passenger assistant was temporarily unable to accompany them and it appeared the route was paused until 17 September when this could recommence.

 

Further correspondence was exchanged regarding the duration of the pause put on the route and it was explained that this information was not held as the ITU had not been made aware that the passenger assistant had been unavailable until they contacted the ITU themselves on 15 September to explain the situation.

 

The driver and his legal representative confirmed the content of the report as being an accurate representation of the facts, and confirmed they had no questions on the report itself.

 

At this point in the meeting, an Officer from the Council’s ITU joined the meeting.  The Officer confirmed her name and job title and explained her role within the ITU.  The Officer explained that she was attending on behalf of her Line Manager who unfortunately was currently unable to attend and, as such, had limited direct involvement with the case but had been briefed.

 

The Officer provided a brief outline of the circumstances of this particular home to school contract with the driver.  The Officer also outlined the procedures in place in relation to home to school contracts, particularly regarding notification of non-attendance of passengers and invoicing by drivers for journeys.

 

The Officer responded to questions from Members of the Committee, the Council’s Legal Representative and the driver’s Legal Representative.

 

At this point in the meeting, it was confirmed that there were no further questions for the Officer.  The Chair thanked the Officer for attending and she left the meeting.

 

The Chair invited the driver’s Legal Representative to present the case on behalf of the driver.  The driver’s Legal Representative presented the facts of the matter and confirmed that the driver had repaid all of the money paid to him by the Council, in full, highlighting that this included the payments for the journeys that he had actually made with the passenger.

 

The driver and his legal representative 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 driver, his Legal Representative, 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 Combined Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref No: 05/26, be revoked, 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.     The Committee considered Section 61 of the Act, the Middlesbrough Council Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Policy 2022 (“the Policy”), the report and representations made by the driver and his representative.

 

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

 

Decision

 

4.     After carefully considering all of the information, the Licensing Committee decided to revoke the driver’s Combined Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle driver’s licence on the grounds of any other reasonable cause.

 

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 stated that 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.

 

7.     The Policy stated that applicants, or existing licence holders, that were found to have intentionally misled the Council, would not be issued with a licence.

 

8.     The Policy further stated that a licensed Hackney Carriage or Private Hire Vehicle driver was expected to be a trustworthy person and that a serious view was taken of any conviction and/or complaints involving dishonesty.

 

9.     The driver had been licensed with the Council as a Combined Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle driver since 1 November 2023, with his current licence due to expire on 31 October 2026.

 

10. On 14 January 2026, Licensing Officers were notified that the driver had been invoicing the Integrated Transport Team (“ITT”) for journeys that had not been completed.  Legal Services were attempting to recover the money totalling £3,282.20.  Officers were informed that a guardian of the child who was being transported to school, had been cancelling the taxi and that the driver was not entitled to payment for cancellations exceeding one consecutive day.

 

11. Details of the contract and the specifics of the arrangement were provided by the ITT to Licensing Officers.  When signing up to the school transport work, drivers must sign a specific contract detailing the terms and conditions of the arrangement.

 

12. The ITT drew specific attention to Schedule 4, Clause 12, of the contract which stated that the driver ‘…must notify the Local Authority if the passenger did not attend on any day and must not claim any costs for the provision of this transport unless agreed by the Local Authority.’  It further clarified that ‘…no payment was due if the passenger was absent for more than one day.’  Finally, it was clear in that it stated ‘…the Authority reserved the right to recover all costs and may terminate the contract and remove the provider from the DPS.’

 

13. On 17 February 2026, the driver attended for an interview with Licensing Officers, a full summary of which was contained within the report.

 

14. The driver confirmed he had been invoicing the ITT in full for the period between 3 September 2025 and 19 November 2025, despite cancellations.  He further informed Officers that once he had been notified that the invoices should not have been paid, he started to pay the money back in instalments but subsequently paid the full balance.  The driver explained that this was his first time undertaking work for the Council and he did not fully understand the invoicing process.

 

15. The driver provided Officers with phone logs showing multiple calls to the ITT between 30 September 2025 and 23 October 2025, which he alleged were to explain he was unsure about the invoicing process.

 

16. The driver informed Officers that he completed 12 actual journeys but that he did keep the ITT informed that the child was not attending, via regular phone calls.  He stated he never intended to overcharge but acknowledged that he did not fully understand the terms of the contract and was unaware that his method of invoicing was not permitted.

 

17. Officers sought clarification from the ITT regarding communication between the driver and ITT. The ITT initially stated they had received no contact from the driver, however, following further enquiries with all members of the team, it was determined that the driver had been in contact but that this was only regarding payment delays when he first began his route.

 

18. The ITT further clarified that responsibility for invoicing rests solely with the driver, who must provide an accurate record of the miles completed.  The ITT had no reason to believe that the invoices submitted were anything other than an accurate reflection of service delivery.

 

19. An Officer from the ITT attended the Committee hearing to answer any questions Members or the driver may have had, as well as summarising the team’s position.  The Officer detailed the contract that drivers sign up to and the expectations of the same.

 

20. The Officer explained to the Committee that drivers could submit invoices weekly, but that payment was made monthly.  The Officer also confirmed that the driver only completed four full day journeys and four half day journeys.

 

21. When questioned whether the driver had made frequent calls regarding the child/parent cancelling jobs, the Officer stated that, to her knowledge, the only calls made by the driver were queries in relation to late payments.  When asked why the driver was paid despite informing ITT on 15 September 2025 that the child had only successfully been transported to school once that week, the Officer was unsure and stated that the payment team dealt with many contracts so assumed it had been missed, and there was an assumption that drivers invoice only for work completed.

 

22. The driver, through his representative, submitted that there were inaccuracies in the report, specifically with the comments of the ITT.  It was submitted that during email exchanges, the ITT had confirmed there was no contact with the driver whatsoever, but subsequently they had confirmed that contact was made.  The Representative further emphasised the call logs provided by the driver to evidence this.

 

23. It was submitted that the driver had no intention of deceiving the Council, and that he had continually informed the ITT of the passenger’s taxi being cancelled.  The driver referenced the call logs as evidence to this assertion, as well as the email of 15 September 2025.  The driver stated he was informed by the ITT that he should continue to invoice in full and that the ITT would investigate it and get back to him.  It was submitted by the driver that as the Local Authority was a large body, he expected them to communicate better and have a better process for checking payments.

 

24. The driver stressed that as soon as he understood he could not invoice as he had, he paid the money back, with the first instalment being made a couple of days after he was notified.

 

25. The driver submitted that he was a fit and proper person, stressed he had no convictions and reiterated that there was no intent to deceive the Council.

 

26. When asked by Members why he paid the money back if he felt he had done nothing wrong and that he had invoiced properly, the driver stated he was concerned for his livelihood and was an honest man.  He stated he made the payments as he trusted the Council to be correct as it was a large authority.

 

27. The driver confirmed, when asked, that he submitted time sheets every week detailing the journeys, and that he was paid monthly.

 

28. When asked why he had not continued to email the ITT, as he had on one occasion on 15 September 2025, the driver stated that he was told he needed to telephone.  He further stated that he believed that the parent would contact the ITT and notify them when the taxi was not needed.

 

29. When asked whether he understood the contract he signed up for, the driver stated he did understand it.

 

30. The Committee found, on balance, after considering all the information it was presented with, that the driver had acted dishonestly.  The Committee determined that the driver should have known not to invoice for journeys that had not been completed, in line with the agreement he had signed.

 

31. The agreement stated that the driver was to notify the ITT when the taxi was cancelled, and the Committee determined that the driver had failed to do this.  The Committee believed that the phone call logs showed multiple phone calls on the same days at varying times, specifically 16 October 2025 and 30 September 2025, and therefore found that it unlikely, on balance, that the driver was informing the ITT of the cancellations, and more likely to be, as the ITT stated, a problem with receiving payments.

 

32. The Committee found, on balance, that the ITT did not inform the driver that he should invoice in full despite cancellations, as the agreement specifically stated otherwise, and was policy.

 

33. Therefore, the Committee determined that it was the responsibility of the driver to invoice correctly for the journeys made or in line with the agreement for cancellations, and that he had failed to do so.

 

34. The Committee also found it puzzling as to why the driver would email on one occasion stating that journeys had been cancelled, but then revert to allegedly telephoning the ITT.  On balance, the Committee determined that the driver did not call the ITT about cancelled jobs.  The Committee also believed that despite the driver stating he was informed that the passenger’s parent would notify the ITT, the onus was still on him to ensure he notified the ITT and, at the very least, invoice correctly.

 

35. The Committee believed that re-imbursement of the invoices was only made as the driver had been caught out, and on balance, the Committee believed he would have continued to invoice incorrectly until this happened.

 

36. The Committee could not see any clear and obvious attempts by the driver to invoice correctly and, therefore, on balance, believed that he had acted dishonestly to receive full payments for work not completed.  The Committee believed that the driver misled the Council.

37. The Committee did not believe that the driver was told to invoice in full and that the ITT would contact him to rectify the issue.  The Committee believed it was clear from the ITT Officer’s submissions, and the contract, that the responsibility rested with the driver.

 

38. The Committee, therefore, found on balance, that the driver was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence in Middlesbrough.

 

39. 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.

 

40. 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.