Minutes:
The Director of Adult Social Care and Health Integration
submitted an exempt report in connection with the review of Combined Hackney
Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref: 07/21, 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,
accompanied by his son, was in attendance at the meeting and verified his name
and address and confirmed that he had received a copy of the report and
understood its contents.
The Licensing Manager presented a summary of the report in
relation to the motoring convictions detailed at 1) to 3) in the report and
three complaints made in relation to the driver’s driving standards by members
of the public.
The report highlighted that the driver first appeared before
the Licensing Committee in January 2010 when Members considered a non-motoring
related offence that is now considered too old to be of relevance. On that occasion Members refused the
application.
The driver again appeared before Members in April 2012 when
the same offence was considered, however, on that occasion he was granted a
licence with a warning that any further convictions would result in a review of
his licence by the Licensing Committee.
The driver now appeared before Members in relation to three
motoring offences, detailed at 1) to 3) in the report, and three separate
complaints made by members of the public in relation to his driving standards.
The driver was interviewed by a Licensing Enforcement
Officer and provided explanations for the offences at 1) to 3) and in relation
to the complaints.
Members were advised that the driver was interviewed by a
Licensing Enforcement Officer on 2 March 2021 and provided his version of
events in relation to the complaint.
The first complaint was made to the Licensing Office on 1
August 2021 and related to an incident on 31 July 2021 when the driver had been
involved in a road traffic collision with the complainant. The complainant stated that the driver had
refused to provide his contact details following the collision.
On 20 August 2021, Officer requested that the driver attend
the Driver Improvement Scheme, in accordance with Council policy, due to the
fact that the driver had accrued nine penalty points on his DVLA licence. A copy of the assessor’s report was attached
at Appendix 1.
A second complaint was made to the Licensing Office on 25
August 2021 relating to an incident on 24 August 2021 when it was alleged that
the driver had forced his way past the complainant’s vehicle, whilst stationary
at traffic lights, causing the driver to drive on the wrong side of the road
into oncoming traffic, and catching the complainant’s wing mirror. A photograph of the incident was provided by
the complainant and attached at Appendix 2.
A further complaint was received on 31 August 2021 in
relation to an incident on 27 August 2021 where the complainant had been a
passenger in the driver’s vehicle and reported that the driver failed to
maintain control of the vehicle on many occasions and that the vehicle appeared
unsafe. The driver subsequently agreed
with advice provided by a Licensing Enforcement Officer and presented his
vehicle for a mechanical inspection at the Council’s Test Centre on 24
September 2021. A copy of the inspection
report was attached at Appendix 3.
It was also highlighted that Council records showed that the
driver had been issued with a warning in 2013 for entering a designated ‘bus
only’ lane and contravening ‘No Entry’ highway signs.
At this point in the meeting, the complainant in relation to
compliant 1) joined the meeting. The
Chair made introductions and explained the procedure to be followed. The complainant was invited to provide his
version of events in relation to the complaint arising from the incident that
occurred on 31 July 2021 when it was reported that the driver had been involved
in a traffic collision with the complainant.
The complainant provided details in relation to the incident
and it was highlighted that the driver had refused to provide his contact
details following the collision. The
complainant had subsequently reported the incident to the driver’s operator,
Cleveland Police and the Council. The
complainant advised that the incident had been captured on the dash-cam in his
vehicle and that he had the footage available for the Committee to view should
they wish to do so.
The driver was afforded the opportunity to ask questions of
the complainant and it became apparent that that the details of the collision
were in dispute, therefore, at this point in the meeting, the Committee decided
to view the dash-cam footage made available by the complainant.
The complainant also responded to questions from Members,
the Council’s legal representative and Licensing Manager and confirmed that the
driver’s insurance company had accepted liability for the accident.
There were no further questions of the complainant and he
left the meeting.
The driver confirmed that the report was an accurate
representation of the facts and was invited to address the Committee.
The driver, supported by his son, addressed the Committee
and responded to questions from Members, the Licensing Manager and the
Council’s legal representative.
It was confirmed that there were no further questions and
driver, his son and Officers of the Council, other than representatives of the
Council’s Legal and Democratic Services, 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 within five working days.
ORDERED that
Combined Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref 07/21 be
revoked, for the following reasons:-
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. The Committee considered: Section 61 of the
Act; Policy Guidance to Applicants, Licensed Drivers and Members of the
Licensing Committee - which came into force on 1 November 2019 (“the Policy”);
the report and the representations made by the driver, his representative and
the witness.
Decision
3. After carefully considering all of the
information and considering the review on its own merits, the Committee decided
to revoke the combined hackney carriage and private hire vehicle driver’s
licence on the grounds of any other reasonable cause for the reasons set out
below.
Reasons
4. The Policy stated that any motoring offence
showed a lack of responsibility whilst driving and the Council took a serious
view if a licensed driver committed a motoring offence - as driving the public
was their profession. A licensed driver
had a responsibility, and was in a position of trust, to drive their passengers
safely and not be a risk to other road users.
5. The Policy stated if an applicant (in this
case a licensee) had a significant history of offences showing a disregard for
safety, depending on the severity, there should be a period of at least 12
months to three years free of incident since the last conviction.
6. The Policy stated if a driver had driven
unsafely as a result of minor traffic offences or upheld complaints about his
driving standards, putting the public at risk, the Council may require the
driver to attend a driver improvement course at his own expense or suspend or
revoke the licence.
7. It was a condition on the licence that the
driver reported any motoring or criminal conviction within seven days. This was essential for Regulators to assess
whether passengers and other road users were safe. If a driver failed to report a motoring or
criminal conviction in breach of their condition they were putting the public
at risk.
8. The driver had been convicted of three
speeding offences - on 13 June 2019, 30 May 2020 and 28 September 2020. He currently had nine points on his
licence. The driver failed to declare
the offences despite a clear requirement to do so and being a condition of his
licence.
9. There had been three separate complaints
about the driver’s dangerous or careless driving standards on 31 July 2021, 24
August 2021 and 27 August 2021. The
driver disputed each complaint.
10. The Committee considered the oral testimony of
a complainant involved in the traffic incident on 31 July 2021 and footage of
the accident. The Committee upheld the
complaint and found the complainant to be credible. This was supported by video footage. The Committee found that the driver could not
understand that he caused a collision and that alone made him a risk to
passengers and the travelling public.
11. The Committee considered and put sufficient
weight on the written complaints made by members of the public who were
unrelated to each other and had no ulterior motive against the driver. The Complaints showed a persistent pattern of
careless or dangerous driving.
12. The driver attended a Driving Improvement
Course on 20 August 2020. The course
provider maintained that some areas of the driver’s driving standards were not
satisfactory and needed improvement.
13. Members of the public made complaints about
the driver’s careless or dangerous driving standards even after the he had
attended the Driver Improvement Course.
14. The Committee considered the driver was a risk
to passengers and other road users. The
Committee considered the driver to be an unsafe driver and had no confidence
that he would comply with the conditions on his licence and report
offences. The Committee was seriously
concerned the driver showed a pattern of unsafe driving but continued to accept
no responsibility for his actions.
15. The Committee decided, as the driver was an
unsafe driver and failed to report his convictions in breach of the conditions
on his licence, he was not fit nor suitable to be licensed to drive the public
in Middlesbrough.
16. The decision was made in accordance with the
Policy and the Committee considered there were no good reasons to depart from
the Policy.
17. If the driver was aggrieved by the decision he
may appeal to the Teesside Justice Centre, Teesside Magistrates, Victoria
Square, Middlesbrough within 21 days from the date of the notice of the
decision.
18. 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 in excess of £750.
Supporting documents: