Agenda item

The Corporate Director of Regeneration and Housing submitted an exempt report in connection with the review of Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref: 06/26, 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, 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 outlining the circumstances leading to the review.  It was noted that the driver had been licensed with Middlesbrough Council since January 2025, with his current licence due to expire in December 2026.

 

The driver appeared before Members for review of his licence following information received from Stockton Council’s Licensing Team, on 28 January 2026, stating that they had been alerted to CCTV footage recorded by their Security and Surveillance Team during the early hours of that morning.

 

The CCTV footage showed the driver, in his Private Hire Licensed Vehicle, at 1.52am, stopping at a location in Stockton, and a lone female approaching the vehicle and speaking to the driver through the open front passenger window.  The female, believed to be a sex worker, then entered the vehicle and was driven through several streets before the vehicle turned into a car park.  Buildings obscured the view of the actual car park, however, it was noted that there was only one entrance/exit to the car park which was covered by the CCTV camera.  The vehicle was subsequently recorded leaving the car park at 2.04am.

 

Subsequent enquiries undertaken by the Council’s Licensing Officers confirmed the owner of the Private Hire Vehicle (which is leased to the driver) who confirmed the identity of the driver and that he had been driving the vehicle on the date in question.  Booking records were provided to Licensing Officers by the driver’s Private Hire Operator in relation to booking records for the time period in question, and this revealed there was no clear evidence of a valid booking for the time period covering the incident in question.  A copy of the booking record was attached at Appendix 1.

 

The driver was interviewed by Licensing Officers 18 February 2026, when he provided an explanation in relation to the incident.  A transcript of the Officers’ notes from the interview were contained within the report. The driver had stated that he believed he had been allocated a booking from a second Private Hire Operator that he also worked for, however, upon checking his phone records, it was discovered that the timing of that booking was unrelated.  When the CCTV footage was shown to the driver, he maintained that he could not remember why he was in the location in question or who the  female was.

 

A Licensing Officer made further enquiries in relation to the incident on 19 February 2026 with the owner of the Private Hire Vehicle, in the presence of the driver.  The vehicle owner stated that the driver had informed him that he had accepted an ‘on screen’ job from the second Private Hire Operator and upon arrival a female had got into the vehicle stating she had no money. The driver had subsequently driven the female to the car park, directed by her, and asked to wait.  When she returned to the vehicle, she asked the driver to continue to another destination, however, she failed to pay the driver.

 

Subsequent checks with the second Private Hire Operator confirmed that there had been no private hire bookings made with the driver between 00:00 and 03:00 on 28 January 2026. 

 

In addition to the information contained within the report, a ‘story board’ document prepared by Officers showing a location plan of the route taken by the driver regarding the journey in question, was attached at Appendix 2.  Photographs of the car park and surrounding area/buildings were attached at Appendix 3.

 

At this point in the meeting, Members viewed the CCTV footage.

 

The driver was asked to present his case and provided his version of events in relation to the incident.  The driver responded to questions from Members 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.

 

** SUSPENSION OF COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULE – EXTEND DURATION OF MEETING

 

As the meeting had reached its three-hour time limit, the Chair proposed a Motion without Notice, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 4.8.25 (ix), to extend the duration of the meeting beyond three hours.

 

The motion was seconded and voted upon unanimously as follows:-

 

ORDERED that, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 4.8.25 (ix), the duration of the meeting be extended beyond the three-hour time limit in order to conclude the remaining business. **

 

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: 06/26 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 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’s 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 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 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.

 

8.     The Policy stated that if a licensed driver had been convicted of an offence, or had any connection with an offence involving or connected with illegal sexual activity or a form of indecency, they would not be licensed.  Examples of such illegal activities included soliciting (kerb crawling).

 

9.     The Policy stated that there may be situations where a licensed driver’s behaviour may not be illegal, nevertheless may result in a licence being revoked.  For example, a licensed driver having sexual relations, committing sexual acts or discussing matters of a sexual nature with a passenger, should expect to have the licence refused or revoked.

 

10. The Code of Conduct for Licensed Drivers stated that licence holders shall behave in a professional manner at all times.

 

11. The driver had been licensed as a Private Hire Driver since 3 January 2025, with his current licence due to expire on 31 December 2026.

 

12. On 28 January 2026, Licensing Officers were notified by Stockton Council Licensing Team that a Middlesbrough Council licensed Private Hire Vehicle had picked up a suspected sex worker.

 

13. CCTV footage showed the vehicle pull up on the kerb side before a lone female was seen walking down the road, conversing with the driver of the vehicle through the passenger window and then entering the vehicle.  The vehicle was then driven to a car park, where it was out of view of the camera for several minutes, before driving off from the area.

 

14. On 18 February 2026, Cleveland Police informed Licensing Officers that they believed the lone female seen entering the vehicle on the CCTV, was a sex worker.  Cleveland Police stated that whilst the female was not known to them, she had associates that were, or had been, sex workers and drug users.

 

15. The driver attended for interview on 18 February 2026, whereby he confirmed that he was driving the vehicle on that day and that he was the only person that drives the vehicle.  A full summary of the interview was contained within the report.

 

16. The driver was shown the CCTV footage and informed Officers that he could not remember who the female in the footage was.  He stated that the female had ‘maybe booked the job’ however upon checking his phone, confirmed there were no booking records for the period.  When asked why he had taken the female to the car park, the driver sighed and stated ‘nothing happened’ and that he ‘can’t explain this’.  He then stated that he ‘did not understand and needed an interpreter’.

 

17. On 19 February 2026, Officers again spoke with the driver over the phone.  The driver was on the call with the vehicle owner.  The driver informed Officers that he had accepted an on-screen job from the second Private Hire Operator.  The female entered the taxi and stated she had no money, so then directed the driver to the car park where she left stating she was going to get some money.  The driver stated he saw the female leave through a gate and would have driven away but she left her wallet.  The driver stated that the female returned and asked to be taken elsewhere and finally left the vehicle following an argument about payment.  The vehicle owner explained that the Private Hire Operator would retract the job for ‘non-payment related work’ because it was deemed to be a ‘no-show’.

 

18. Licensing Officers sought clarification of bookings from the Private Hire Operator between the hours of 00:00am and 03:00am, as well as any cancellations or retracted jobs.  The Private Hire Operator confirmed that there were no records during that period of time.

 

19. Officers further contacted the driver on 3 March 2026 following a visit to the car park.  The driver stated he believed the female went into one of the terraced houses via the alleyway, however, Licensing Officers clarified that the only entry to the alleyway was through one entrance point which was visible on the CCTV.   The Driver then stated he had misunderstood and changed his account to state that the female had walked in the direction of the building that the car park belonged to but did not see where she went.

 

20. The Committee considered the driver’s account at the hearing to be confused and disjointed.  The driver reiterated that the female had booked a job, despite hearing from the Licensing Officer that Private Hire Operator had confirmed there were no records and that the other Private Hire Operator records had not shown a booking for the relevant period.

 

21. The driver reiterated that nothing untoward had happened with the female.  The driver stated he had four children and a wife who depended on him to earn a wage.

 

22. The Committee found the driver to be disingenuous and found several inaccuracies in his account.  The Committee believed that the driver had frequently changed his story to try and deceive Officers and found, on balance, that this was to distance himself from soliciting an individual for sexual services.  The driver continued to state that the female had booked a job despite clear evidence from the Operators confirming no records of a booking existed.

 

23. The Committee believed the driver had again changed his story following the Licensing Officers’ visit to the area and confirmation that there was no access to the terraced houses out of view of the CCTV.

 

24. The Committee found the driver to be untruthful and evasive with his answers to questions.

 

25. The Committee, therefore, on balance, believed that the driver was engaging the female for the purposes of sex work and subsequently tried to distance himself from this behaviour by lying to Officers and Members.

 

26. The Committee determined that the behaviour was unacceptable and, as a result, found that the driver had abused his position of trust.  Consequently, the Committee felt that the driver was not a fit and proper person to hold a taxi licence in Middlesbrough.

 

27. The Committee found that, on balance, the female was likely a vulnerable individual and the driver had taken advantage and, therefore, for the safety of the public, determined that the revocation would be with immediate effect.

 

28. 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.

 

29. 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.