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: 08/26, 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 Licensing Manager presented a summary of the report outlining that the applicant appeared before Members due to the conviction detailed at 1) in the submitted report.  It was highlighted that the applicant had failed to declare the conviction in his application and that the information was discovered following a check on the status of his DVLA driving licence.

The applicant was interviewed by a Licensing Enforcement Officer on 12 February 2026 when he provided an explanation in relation to the conviction and confirmed that there were no outstanding matters of which the Council was unaware.

The applicant stated that he had been driving in the UK for 20 years without any accidents, incidents or convictions other than the one listed at 1).  The applicant’s explanation in relation to the offence was detailed in the report.

The applicant confirmed the report as being an accurate representation of the facts and was invited to address the Committee in support of his application.  The applicant addressed the Committee in support of his application and responded to questions from Members 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 a Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref No: 08/26 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.     On 2 October 2024 the applicant was fined and given six penalty points for using a mobile phone whilst driving.

6.     The applicant failed to declare the motoring offence on his application form.  The form was clear; it required an applicant to declare all convictions including motoring offences and the applicant, by submitting the application, was making a declaration as to the truth of the content of the application.

7.     The Policy stated a serious view would be taken regarding convictions for driving whilst using a mobile phone or hand-held device.  There was evidence to show that drivers who used a mobile phone or hand-held device had slower reaction times than those who had consumed up to the legal alcohol limit.  In light of this, an equally serious view would be taken of a conviction for driving whilst using a mobile phone or hand-held device and a driver’s licence would not be granted until at least five years have elapsed since the conviction.

8.     The Department of Transport Statutory Standards for taxi and private hire vehicles, to which the Committee must have regard, stated: Where an applicant had a conviction for using a held‐hand mobile telephone or a hand‐held device whilst driving, a licence would not be granted until at least five years had elapsed since the conviction or completion of any sentence or driving ban imposed, whichever was the later.

9.     The applicant submitted in his response during interview that the phone fell out of its cradle whilst he was on a call using a hands-free device and picked it up whilst driving, concerned it could go under the pedals.  In Committee, the applicant said the cradle was loose.  If that was the case, the Committee considered whether a responsible driver would use the cradle and make a call in the first instance.  It considered his explanations as to how he was holding the phone to be inconsistent and unclear and did not find the applicant credible.  The Committee put weight on the fact that the Police issued the fine and penalty points after witnessing the applicant using his phone whilst driving.

10. In any event, the Committee was not permitted in law to go behind the conviction.  The fixed penalty notice had clear directions how to appeal if the applicant considered he was not guilty of the offence, however, he did not do so, therefore, the conviction stood.  The applicant stated he was stressed and then out of the country and disagreed with the conviction but this did not circumvent the fact of the conviction for driving whilst using a mobile phone or the appeal process.

11. The Committee noted the applicant said he had been driving for 20 years without incident but considered this did not detract from the seriousness of using a mobile phone whilst driving which was supported by the Policy, Statutory Standards and that the Government increased the penalty because of the data showing the seriousness and risks of using a mobile phone whilst driving.

12. Failure to declare motoring convictions was considered by the Committee to be a serious matter. Knowingly or recklessly making a false statement, or to omit information, may be an offence under the Act.  It goes directly to the fitness and trustworthiness of the applicant.

13. The Committee put no weight on the applicant’s explanation that someone from his employer must have clicked “no” in answer to the question on the applicant’s application form after he said he told them about his conviction.  The Committee considered this was either untrue as applicants had their own personal ID and password to complete their application form, otherwise wholly reckless and irresponsible for an applicant to allow another to make false statements on the applicant’s behalf which he was declaring to be true.

14. The Committee, therefore, did not consider the applicant to be fit and proper to be trusted with a Private Hire Vehicle driver’s licence and there were no good reasons to depart from the Policy or the Statutory Standards.

15. 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. 

16. 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.