Agenda item

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.