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: 10/26, where circumstances had arisen which required special consideration by the Committee.

The Principal Licensing Officer advised the Committee that the driver was not in attendance, despite a hand-delivered letter inviting him to attend Committee being delivered to his home address.  In addition, the invitation letter had been emailed to the driver and several voice mails had been left for him.

The Council’s legal representative advised given that the driver had failed to attend despite numerous attempts made by Licensing Officers to contact the driver, to which he failed to respond, in the interests of public safety the Committee may wish to proceed in the driver’s absence.

The Committee subsequently unanimously agreed to proceed with hearing the matter in the driver’s absence.

The Principal Licensing Officer presented a summary of the report outlining that the driver had been licensed with Middlesbrough Council since September 2024 and that the purpose of the hearing was to review the driver’s licence following a complaint, dated 22 January 2026, from a licensed Private Hire Operator regarding his conduct.  A copy of the complaint was attached at Appendix 1.

The complainant stated that the Private Hire Operator would no longer allow the driver to work for their company due to his dishonesty and cited several incidents, full details of which were included in the report.  In summary the incidents were as follows:-

•         15 December 2025 – Driver failed to pay for fuel.  The garage contacted the Private Hire Operator who instructed the driver to return to pay, however, he failed to do so.

•         23 December 2025 – Driver failed to pay for fuel at a different garage.  The Private Hire Operator paid the amount and recharged the debt to the driver on this occasion.

•         5 January 2026 – School transport contract.  The driver falsely claimed to have transported a child to school despite the child not attending on that date.

•         27 August 2025 – NHS booking.  NHS contacted the Private Hire Operator to ascertain the whereabouts of a patient who had failed to attend an appointment.  When questioned, the driver stated he had dropped the patient off and this information was relayed to the NHS.  As the NHS were unable to locate the patient, they were reported as missing to the Police.  During interview with his Private Hire Operator, but only after he was made aware they had been reported missing to the Police, the driver admitted to lying about dropping off the patient so that he would be paid for the booking.

An investigation into the matters raised was undertaken by Licensing Officers, however, this was delayed until March 2026 due to heavy workloads.  A Licensing Officer initially attempted to contact the driver by phone on 11 March 2026 and left a voicemail requesting a call back as it was unanswered.

The same day the Licensing Officer emailed the driver requesting that he attend for interview at the Licensing Office on 16 March 2026, copy attached at Appendix 2.  The Licensing Officer also emailed the Private Hire Operator requesting further evidence in relation to the complaint.

On 16 March 2026, the driver emailed the Licensing Officer to advise he would be unable to attend the planned interview, copy attached at Appendix 3.

Attached at Appendix 4 was further information received from the Private Hire Operator, including subsequent documents relating to the incident on 5 January, attached at Appendix 5.

On 17 March 2026 the Licensing Officer sent a further email to the driver inviting him to a rearranged interview on 24 March 2026 and a hard copy of the invitation was sent to the driver’s home (Appendix 6).

The driver again failed to attend the interview on 24 March.  The Licensing Officer contacted the driver who advised he was unable to attend as he was busy.  The Licensing Officer agreed to reschedule the interview to 25 March.  A confirmation email was sent to the driver, however, he again failed to attend.

A further interview was arranged for 7 April and an email was sent to the driver with the details on 26 March 2026, adding that this would be his final invitation to an interview and that failure to attend may result in his case being heard at Committee in his absence without his comments being taken into account.  A copy was attached at Appendix 7.

On 7 April, the driver emailed the Licensing Officer to advise he was too busy to attend the interview but asking if an alternative could be arranged (attached at Appendix 8), however, the Licensing Officer was on annual leave until 14 April and did not see the email until then.  The Officer did, however, have an out of office message activated with alternative contact arrangements which were not acted upon by the driver.

The Licensing Officer emailed the driver on 16 April 2026 with a final opportunity to attend an interview on 23 April (attached at Appendix 9), with a hard copy sent to the driver’s home address.  No response was received from the driver and he, again, failed to attend the interview.

In view of the driver’s failure to respond to reasonable requests by Officers to attend for interview, the Licensing Manager decided to refer the matter to the Licensing Committee for review of the driver’s licence.

Officers were aware of the possibility that the driver may have undertaken private hire work for another Operator and contacted them with a formal request for any information they held regarding complaints against the driver.  The Operator responded on 29 April 2026 (copy attached at Appendix 10), outlining six complaints received between 8 January 2025 and 7 March 2025 regarding the driver.  The complaints included speeding, unsafe driving, use of mobile phone, moving off before the passenger was fully inside the vehicle, appearing too tired to drive safely and aggressive driving towards other road users.

In addition, Licensing records showed that on 24 October 2025, the driver was issued with a written warning following a complaint made against him by a member of the public when it was alleged the driver was involved in a collision.  He became involved in a confrontation with the other driver and his elderly, vulnerable passenger was not acknowledged or engaged with during the journey nor offered assistance when the journey concluded.

When interviewed by a Licensing Enforcement Officer, the driver explained the circumstances of the incident and acknowledged he had not engaged with the passenger stating he was tired and stressed.

Members were afforded the opportunity to ask questions in relation to the report.  It was confirmed that there were no further questions 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, in writing, within five working days.

ORDERED that Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref No: 10/26 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 suspend or revoke or refuse to renew 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 a revocation or suspension 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”), and the report.

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

Decision 

5.     After carefully considering all 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.  The reasons for the decision were as follows: 

Reasons

6.     The Committee decided to proceed with the review in the driver’s absence.  In making this decision the Committee considered that, despite numerous attempts by Licensing Officers, as set out in the report, for the driver to attend an interview in respect of the complaints made against him, the driver failed to fully respond or attend the interviews arranged.  It also considered that Licensing Officers had hand delivered the invitation to the Committee hearing, with a copy of the report to the driver’s address and sent it by email.  Two follow up telephone calls and voicemail messages were left, together with a follow up email informing the driver of the Committee date and the requirement for him to attend.  The Committee, therefore, considered that the driver had ample opportunity to attend and as the Committee considered the review should not be further delayed in the interests of protecting the public, the Committee considered it was justified in proceeding in the driver’s absence.

7.     The driver had received the following complaints involving dishonesty:

•         On 27 August 2025, the driver falsely stated he had picked up a patient and dropped them off at hospital.  Only when the patient was reported to the Police as missing did the driver admit that he had lied to be paid for the booking.

•         On 1 December 2025, the driver made off from a garage at Hutton Rudby without paying for fuel.

•         On 15 December 2025, the driver made off from BP Wolviston Services without paying for fuel.

•         On 5 January 2026, the driver claimed he had taken a child to school, but the child was not attending on that date and the GPS tracking system confirmed the driver did not go to the school gates.

8.     The driver’s employer provided the complaints and confirmed he was no longer permitted to work for them due to his dishonesty.

9.     The Policy confirmed that as a licensed driver was in an extreme position of trust, a serious view is to be taken of any complaint involving dishonesty.  The Policy states that for an isolated offence of dishonesty a licence will not be granted until at least seven years had elapsed since the completion of any sentence imposed.  However, it further confirmed that a licence will not be granted (meaning irrespective of any conviction free period), if a driver had more than one conviction for dishonesty showing they were likely to be continually dishonest.  Although there were no convictions, the driver had on numerous occasions acted dishonestly and lied for monetary gain.

10. The driver had received the following complaints regarding unsafe driving and aggressive behaviour:

•         On 8 January 2025, the driver was reported to his private hire operator for speeding and driving unsafely.

•         On 17 January 2025, the driver was reported to his private hire operator for speeding, harsh braking, using a mobile phone and moving off before the passenger was safely inside the vehicle.

•         On 22 January 2025, the driver was reported to his private hire operator for speeding and unsafe driving.

•         On 27 February 2025, the driver was reported to his private hire operator for speeding.

•         On 7 March 2025, the driver was reported to his private hire operator for unsafe driving and being tired.

•         On 7 March 2025, the driver was reported to his private hire operator for unsafe and aggressive driving towards other road users.

•         On 22 September 2025, a complaint was received by the Council that the driver had been involved in a collision, and that he became confrontational with the other driver whilst having a vulnerable passenger in his vehicle.  The driver received a warning.

11. The Policy stated if a Licensee had driven unsafely as a result of complaints about his driving standards, putting the public at risk, the Council may revoke the licence and, as unsafe driving was a risk to public safety, a revocation may take immediate effect.  The Policy also stated if an applicant had a significant history of offences, showing a disregard for safety, an application would not normally be considered until a conviction-free period of at least five years had lapsed since the date of conviction.

12. The Committee considered that the driver had only been licensed as a Private Hire Vehicle driver since 24 September 2024 and, within a short period of time whilst being in a position of trust as a licensee, the driver was continually dishonest whilst acting as a Private Hire Vehicle driver and had a clear pattern of unsafe driving putting his passengers and road users at significant risk to their safety.  The driver also failed to respond to requests from Licensing Officers which could amount to an offence under Section 73(1)(b) of the Act.  The Committee was therefore satisfied the licence should be revoked under any other reasonable cause and the decision to revoke was in accordance with its Policy.

13. The driver’s dishonesty, wholly unsafe driving, and failure to respond and engage with Licensing Officers’ requests was a significant risk to public safety and the Committee was satisfied the licence should be revoked with immediate effect.

14. 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. 

15. 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 applicant which could be in excess of £1,000.