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: 13/26, 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 legal representative, 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 as a result of the offences detailed at 1) to 5) in the submitted report. 

The applicant had previously appeared before Members on 9 October 2018 with an application for a Private Hire Vehicle driver licence.  On that occasion, the Committee refused to grant the application after considering the convictions listed at 1) to 3) in the report.  A copy of the October 2018 decision letter was attached at Appendix 1.

The applicant was interviewed by a Licensing Enforcement Officer on 23 February 2026 when he provided explanations in relation to the offences listed at 1) to 5) and confirmed that there were no outstanding matters of which the Council was unaware.

During interview, the applicant reflected on his previous application which was refused in 2018 and stated that he was now a very different person and had fallen in with the wrong crowd, who he no longer associated with.  He stated that he was a family man and currently balanced running his own takeaway business with taking his children to school, supporting his wife’s business and helping to look after his parents.  He stated that the flexibility of being a taxi driver would suit his busy lifestyle.

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’s legal representative presented the case in support of the applicant, emphasising that the first three convictions had occurred more than 16 years ago and that he was now more mature with his own family and responsibilities.  The two most recent speeding offences had occurred when he was carrying out food deliveries for his own business and he had no passengers on board.  The legal representative added that the applicant would be willing to complete a Driver Improvement Scheme if the Committee considered it appropriate.  The applicant’s legal representative advised that the applicant had brought along some character references in his support.

The Chair agreed that the references could be submitted and announced a short adjournment to allow the Committee time to read them.  At this point in the meeting, the applicant, his legal representative and officers of the Council other than those from Legal and Democratic Services, withdrew from the meeting whilst the Committee considered the references.

Subsequently all parties returned and Members were afforded the opportunity to ask questions of the applicant.  Accordingly, the applicant responded to questions from Members of the Committee.

It was confirmed that there were no further questions and the applicant, 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 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: 13/26 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 legal 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.     The applicant had been convicted of the following offences:

•         4 April 2007 - Driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol, 4 March 2007, fined £200, costs £54; sentence - Disqualified from driving for 18 months, reduced by 4.5 months.

•         6 March 2009 -  Possessing a Controlled Drug, Class A Cocaine on the 28 February 2009 S5(2) Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; sentence – fined £65, costs £30, Forfeiture and Destruction of Cocaine.

•         18 December 2009 - Possessing a Controlled Drug, Class A Cocaine on the 27 October 2008 S5(2) Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; sentence – no separate penalty.

•         18 December 2009 - Possessing a Controlled Drug with Intent to Supply Class C on the 27 October 2008 S5(3) Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; sentence – Imprisonment 9 months suspended for 24 months, Curfew Requirement 3 months electronic tagging; Forfeiture and Destruction, Confiscation £273, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

•         11 June 2022 - Exceeding Statutory Speed Limit on a public road SP30; sentence – fixed penalty fine, 3 points endorsed on driving licence.

•         20 November 2023 - Exceeding Statutory Speed Limited on a public road (SP30); sentence – fixed penalty fine, 3 points endorsed on driving licence.

6.     After checking the records, although the applicant declared his previous drink-driving and drug offences, he did not declare his motoring offences on his application form.

7.     The Policy stated in relation to a drink-driving offence, an applicant must show at least seven years free from conviction since the completion of any sentence/ban imposed.  If there was more than one conviction of driving whilst under the influence a licence would normally be refused.

8.     The Policy stated a licence would normally be refused if an applicant had more than one conviction for drugs related offences.

9.     The Policy stated applicants with six points may be required to complete a Driver Improvement Scheme.  However, it stated the Council took a serious view if a driver committed a motoring offence as driving would be his profession and he would be responsible for ensuring he drove his passengers safely and was not a risk to road users.

10. The Policy confirmed the Committee must assess the offending on the whole rather than separately in order to assess the suitability of an applicant.

11. The Committee noted the applicant’s previous interview, the interview for the current application and the representations at Committee.  It noted, in summary: the applicant explained the drugs offences occurred over a period when he was young, and doing wrong things with the wrong crowd, over a relatively short period of time during 2008/2009.  The applicant stated, for the first offence he picked up a packet of white power from the floor outside a nightclub and forgot about it when Police raided the club.  For the convictions of possession of cocaine and possession with intent to supply Class C drugs in December 2009, the applicant said he was with his friends smoking cannabis in a car, the Police came to the scene and arrested them.  He admitted to possessing cannabis but said he was unaware of the cocaine, the other passengers had blamed him for bringing cocaine, but he pleaded guilty at court to the offences.   The applicant stated he was living a changed life with a family and had his own business, supported his wife and children, that he no longer associated with any of his old friends and had not stayed in contact with them, that this showed there was no pattern of behaviour and he had been conviction-free for 14 and a half years since the expiration of his suspended sentence. 

12. The Committee considered that Middlesbrough was ranked the second most deprived local authority area in the country including crime.  The Committee was aware Middlesbrough severely suffered from drug abuse and drug harms and was ranked one of the highest in the country for drug related crimes.  This information supported a firm line in the Policy that applicants with more than one isolated drug offence should never be licensed, regardless of a conviction-free period, in all but truly exceptional circumstances.

13. The Committee noted the applicant has his own food takeaway business but had applied to be a taxi driver as he was under a lot of financial difficulty and wanted the flexibility of taxi work to suit his busy lifestyle.  However, it was not the role of the Committee to provide employment or risk giving the benefit of the doubt or give a “chance” to the applicant to the detriment and risk of the public particularly considering the issues Middlesbrough faced with drug harms and drug crimes.  Public protection was the paramount role of the Committee. 

14. The Committee considered the explanations given by the applicant failed to show he took full accountability and responsibility for his actions. The Committee cannot in law go behind the convictions.  The applicant was in possession of cocaine in February 2009 and October 2008, in October 2008 he was in possession of a class C drug with intent to supply.  The Committee considered the applicant pleaded guilty in a criminal court to his offences, later denying intention to supply to the Committee and saying he was not in possession of cocaine in October 2008 was disingenuous and was either misleading the court or the committee and not taking responsibility for his crimes.

15. A licensed driver was in an utmost position of trust who operated in a high-risk environment which was highly likely to involve exposure to drugs and associated criminal behaviour.  A private hire vehicle was a perfect guise to transport, supply or distribute drugs under the legitimacy of a licence.  The Committee could not be satisfied that the applicant who, in his past, was involved in taking drugs, possessing drugs, possessing drugs with intent to supply and associated with others involved in drugs, was suitable to be licensed and potentially exposed to that unlawful activity particularly in the nighttime economy and in an area prevalent with drugs misuse, harms, crimes and exploitation.

16. The Committee also took into consideration the applicant’s offending on the whole.  In addition to the drugs offences the applicant was convicted of an offence involving alcohol, drink-driving in 2007.  The applicant had two speeding convictions in 2022 and 2023.  Both speeding offences occurred whilst he was delivering food as part of his business which indicated the applicant may not have learnt from the previous speeding offence or the seriousness of speeding whilst driving in his employment.  Driving likewise was the profession of a licensee who must always drive safely within the speed limit.

17. The Committee was also concerned that the applicant failed to declare the speeding offences on his application form.  The form was clear; it required an applicant to declare all convictions including motoring offences and the applicant was making a declaration as to the truth of the content of the application.  Failure to declare motoring convictions was considered by the Committee to be a serious matter.  It goes directly to the trustworthiness of the applicant.

18. The Committee, for the above reasons, did not consider the applicant to be suitable or fit and proper to be licensed to drive Private Hire Vehicles and considered there were no good reasons to depart from its Policy in relation to the drug offences.

19. 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. 

20. 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.