Minutes:
The Director of Adult Social Care and Health Integration submitted an exempt report in connection with the review of Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref: 11/21, 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,
who was in attendance at the meeting, 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. It was highlighted that the
driver was first licensed with Middlesbrough Council in May 2019 and had no
previous convictions.
The driver now appeared before Members following a complaint
made by a member of the public on 11 October 2021 in relation to an incident
involving the driver on 9 October 2021.
The complaint related to a journey booked by the female
passenger using a taxi booking app with the driver’s operator prior to taking
the journey. The passenger pre-paid the
fare stated on the app and, whilst she considered it to be on the low side, she
did not question it as she had not travelled that journey before.
During the actual journey, the passenger alleged that the
driver had become aggressive towards her, stating that the fare wrong and was
too low and that she needed to pay more.
He initially checked with his operator who told him that the fare was
correct and that he did not have to undertake the job if he did not want to. The driver had continued to complain to the
passenger about the fare and had shouted at her and told her to get out of the
vehicle if she was not willing to pay more.
The passenger refused as they were travelling on a dark country road and
she believed the fare to be correct and had already paid using the app. She had explained to the driver that she did
not carry cash with her to which he responded he would drive her to a
cashpoint. The passenger had again
refused and asked to be taken home but stated she felt scared. The driver stated he would ‘sort it out’ and
kept looking at his phone.
The complainant stated that once they arrived at her home,
the driver informed her that the operator had added £4.50 to her fare. The complainant stated that she checked her
bank account and the amount of £11.70 had been taken by the taxi firm (an
additional £4.50 to the original fare).
The complainant had telephoned her father when she got home
as she felt frightened and upset. Her
father had subsequently contacted the taxi operator who advised that the
additional money was charged due to two extra drop offs made on the
journey. A copy of the complaint was
attached at Appendix 1 and a copy of an email to the Licensing Officer from the
complainant’s father was attached at Appendix 2.
The driver was interviewed by a Licensing Enforcement
Officer on 5 November 2021 when he provided an explanation in relation to the
complaint. The driver’s taxi operator
confirmed that the complainant had been refunded the amount for the payment of
£11.50 that was taken for the journey together with an apology. A copy of the driver’s private hire booking
record for the evening of 9 October was attached at Appendix 3.
At this point, the complainant, accompanied by her father,
joined the meeting. The Chair introduced
those present and explained the procedure to be followed. The complainant confirmed the content of her
complaint and provided her account of the incident on 9 October 2021. The complainant responded to questions from
Members, the Council’s Legal Representative and the driver. The complainant’s father also responded to
questions from Members and the Council’s Legal Representative.
There were no further questions and the complainant and her
father withdrew from the meeting.
The driver was invited to present his case and provided his
recollection of the journey on 9 October.
The driver responded to questions from Members, the Licensing Manager
and the Council’s Legal Representative.
It was confirmed that there were no further questions and
the driver 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
Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref No: 11/21, be revoked, as follows:-
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 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 private hire vehicle driver’s licence on the grounds of any other
reasonable cause for the reasons set out below.
Reasons
4.
It was a condition of the driver’s private hire
vehicle driver’s licence that he must ensure that he charges passengers only
the fare agreed between the operator and the passenger (unless a deviation of
the route was requested by the hirer when an amended fare shall be agreed with
the operator).
5.
It was also a condition of the driver’s licence
that he took all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of passengers conveyed
in his vehicle, behaved in a civil and orderly manner at all times and at all
times treat their passengers or any potential passenger with courtesy and
respect.
6.
The Policy required drivers to be courteous,
avoid confrontation, not exhibit prejudice, not take the law into their own
hands and demonstrate conduct befitting to the trust that was placed in
them. The Policy confirmed drivers
should not take advantage of their position of trust.
7.
The Policy confirmed drivers were in an extreme
position of trust as they may transport passengers travelling alone. It required a licensed driver to be a
trustworthy person as it was comparatively easy for a dishonest driver to
defraud the public by demanding more than the agreed fare.
8.
A complaint was received from a female passenger
who was travelling alone with the driver. The complainant stated and confirmed
in Committee that she ordered a taxi and paid for it by an app in the sum of
£6.70. The driver had told her the price
was wrong but had phoned the office who confirmed the price was correct. The driver had then shouted at her and told
her to get out of the vehicle on a dark country road in the middle of nowhere. The complainant
refused but was very scared as a result.
The driver continued to shout at her saying it was not fair and that she
would have to go to a cash machine or he would not take her home. The
complainant confirmed she was very scared throughout and was now worried about
getting into a taxi alone. The
complainant’s bank details showed that on top of the original fare of £6.70 an
additional fare of £11.20 was pending.
This was the £6.70 fare with additional drop offs which the driver had
added. The drop offs did not take
place. The Complainant’s father
confirmed that the Complainant was very scared as a result of the journey.
9.
The driver told Licensing Officers he had just
dropped off a fare to the same pub where the complainant requested the booking
in Hilton Village. He claimed as soon as
he accepted the job the complainant got straight in his vehicle which is why he
did not check the fare and did not refuse the job. However, the operator confirmed the booking
records showed the previous booking was in Norton and was completed at 20:12
hours. This booking was picked up at
21:13 hours. The driver did not,
therefore, have a pre-booked job to drop off at the pub in Hilton. The driver then changed his story at
Committee and stated he was waiting near the pub in Hilton in between
jobs. The Committee did not consider the
driver to be truthful and considered he may have been taking other jobs that
were not pre-booked or lied about the circumstances of accepting the job.
10. The
driver stated that the app did not show the fare. However, the operator confirmed that the
driver received the full details of the booking before accepting it, including
the price. The Committee, therefore,
considered the driver was being untruthful.
11. The
driver claimed that the complainant agreed for him to add one drop off to the
price. The complainant confirmed she did
not agree to the addition of any drop offs and informed the Committee that the
driver said he would sort it. The
Committee considered the driver was untruthful and the drop offs were not
agreed.
12. The
driver had added two drop offs to the fare.
He claimed that he did this by mistake as he clicked the app then
clicked it again as a result of a delay on the system. However, the operator confirmed that the drop
offs were added by the app being clicked on two different roads, one being Low
Lane and the other being Stainton Way.
The Committee, therefore, considered the driver was again being
untruthful.
13. The
driver denied shouting at the passenger or telling her to get out of the
vehicle. However the actions of the
driver led to the complainant feeling very scared and scared to travel in
private hire vehicles alone again. The
complainant confirmed he was shouting during the journey.
14. The
fare was agreed between the operator and the complainant and it was wholly
inappropriate for the driver to continue to demand the complainant to pay more
throughout the journey and asking her to go to a cash machine. It was wholly inappropriate and dangerous to
tell the complainant to leave the vehicle on a dark secluded road. It was wholly inappropriate that a
complainant felt very scared throughout and after the journey as a result of
the driver’s conduct. The Committee also
considered the driver had been dishonest not only in increasing the fare but in
respect of his explanations as set out above.
15. The
purpose of the Licensing regime was to protect the travelling public against
drivers who conduct themselves as the driver did which left a female passenger,
travelling alone, feeling very scared and from untrustworthy drivers such as
the Licensee. The Committee decided
nothing less than revocation would meet its duty to protect the public.
16. 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.
17. If the driver appealed 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: