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: 12/26, 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 accompanied by his partner, 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 Police Caution detailed at 1) in the submitted report.  It was highlighted that the applicant had failed to declare the caution in his application and that the information was revealed in his DBS disclosure.

The applicant was interviewed by a Licensing Enforcement Officer on 13 March 2026 when he provided an explanation in relation to the caution 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.

During interview, the applicant stated he was unaware that he had received a caution and believed nothing had been formally recorded and that he had not declared the caution on his application form as he was unaware that he had been issued with one.

In relation to the circumstances of the incident leading to the caution, the applicant had stated that he and his partner had been drinking at home when they had begun to argue.  The argument had escalated causing the applicant’s partner to call the Police.  It was highlighted to the applicant that a caution for battery required actual unlawful physical contact, however, the applicant maintained that there was no physical involved and that he did not use, or condone, physical violence.

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.  The applicant’s partner also spoke in support of the applicant and responded to questions.

It was confirmed that there were no further questions and the applicant, his partner, 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: 12/26 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 and his representative. 

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 28 April 2020 the applicant received a Police caution for battery.

6.     The Policy stated: a licence would normally be refused where the applicant had a conviction for an offence of violence against the person or connected with any offence of violence until a period of at least ten years has elapsed since the completion of any sentence imposed.

7.     The Department of Transport Statutory Standards for taxi and private hire vehicles, to which the Committee must have regard, confirmed “Where an applicant had a conviction for an offence of violence against the person, or connected with any offence of violence, a licence would not be granted until at least 10 years had elapsed since the completion of any sentence imposed.”

8.     The Policy confirmed that a caution should be treated, for the purposes of the guidelines, as a conviction.

9.     The Policy stated: the Council deemed incidents of domestic violence to be extremely serious because if an individual was prepared to assault an individual in a domestic or home environment, then they would have concerns over the person’s ability to maintain their temper when working in an environment dealing with members of the public.

10. The applicant stated he was unaware he had a caution.  He explained in summary that he and his partner had been drinking during lockdown and began arguing and shouting.  The applicant’s partner rang the Police.  When the Police arrived, the applicant was arrested and taken to the Police station.  The applicant was at the Police station for a number of hours and interviewed, he denied a physical altercation.  The applicant said he and his then partner were married in 2021 and were in a stable relationship.

11. The Committee confirmed that the offence of battery was committed by the intentional or reckless application of unlawful force to another person.  Before a Police caution could be given, the Police must have sufficient evidence for a conviction for the offence of battery.  Before a caution could be given the applicant must have understood the offence and the implications of the caution.  The applicant must have consented to the caution and admitted his guilt to the offence of battery for a caution to be given, a simple caution form would have been signed by the applicant, and he would have been given a copy by the Police.  The Committee could not go behind the caution.  The Committee, therefore, considered the applicant had applied unlawful force to his partner and could not accept the applicant’s denial.  The Committee considered that the applicant did not therefore accept responsibility or take accountability of his actions of violence.  The Committee considered licensed drivers to be in the utmost position of trust and it must protect the public from drivers who had used violence, exacerbated by being in a domestic setting, and therefore did not consider it should depart from the Policy requiring 10 years free of incident to ensure the public were safe.

12. The applicant failed to declare the caution on his application form.  In view that a caution cannot be issued unless the applicant fully understood the caution, the implications, admitted the offence, consented to the caution, would have signed a document setting out the caution, and in view that the applicant had said this was the only incident he had been involved in with the Police; the Committee did not accept the applicant’s claims that he did not know he was cautioned.  The Committee considered that knowingly or recklessly making a false statement or to omit information may be an offence under the Act and it goes directly to the fitness and trustworthiness of the applicant.

13. The Committee, for the above reasons, therefore, did not consider the applicant to be safe and suitable or fit and proper to be licensed as a Private Hire Vehicle driver and found no good reasons to depart from its Policy or the Government’s Statutory Standards.

14. 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.

15. 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 excess of £1,000.