Agenda and minutes

The Senior Democratic Services Officer read out the procedure.

There were none.

At this point in the meeting declarations of interest are received from Members in any of the agenda items under consideration at the meeting. Members are asked to indicate:

(a) The agenda item number in which they have an interest to declare.

(b) The nature of their interest.

(c) Whether their interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest or an other interest,  (as defined in Part 2, A and B of the Code of Conduct and Rules for Registration of Interests)

Any Member who needs to clarify any matters relating to the declaration of interests is recommended to seek advice from the Council’s Monitoring Officeror a member of his staff before the meeting to expedite dealing with the item during the meeting.

There were none.

There was none.

These were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Chair drew attention to the procedure to be followed for agenda items 8 and 9.

The Committee is asked to consider passing the following resolution:

“that having been satisfied that the public interest would be better served by not disclosing relevant information, in accordance with the provisions of Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item(s) of business and the reporting of the meeting be prevented under Section 100A(5A) because of the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, as amended.   

RESOLVED that, the Sub-Committee having been satisfied that the public interest would be better served by not disclosing relevant information, the public be excluded from the meeting for agenda items 8 and 9 in accordance with the provisions of Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, and that the reporting of these items be prevented in accordance with Section 100A(5A) of the Act, because of the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, as amended.

Mr D M confirmed that he had received and understood the procedure to be followed for the hearing.

The Senior Public Protection Officer summarised the updated report and invited the Sub-Committee to determine the issue.

Mr D M gave an oral statement and was questioned by Members.

Mr D M explained that, for the last six months or so, he had been going through difficulties in his personal life which had had an impact on his actions and behaviour and compromised his integrity.  In relation to the incident on 24.03.15 Mr D M did not accept that he had a hostile and rude attitude towards his client.  He said that there was no agreed price because he only charged the fare on the meter as he was the only car available. Mr D M did say that he would have charged different price only if there were drivers at the other end to confirm an agreed price.  Mr D M took full responsibility for speeding incident.  Mr D M also claimed that he did not open letters sent to his home address hence why he had not submitted a valid DBS certificate. 

Mr D M was questioned by Members and made the following responses:

On a question from a Member why he didn’t produce a valid DBS check or respond to letters from the Council – Mr D M responded that the effects of not being able to see his daughter were that he didn’t open and answer any mail (letters) for which he apologised.  Mr D M said that he was not clear about the DBS check procedure.  He felt that he only needed to pay renewal by credit card and he didn’t realise that he had to produce new DBS check for year 2015.  Mr D M believed that he only needed to complete renewal form electronically without the need of sending new DBS check.

Senior Public Protection Officer said that Mr D M had been asked to produce new DBS check in March 2015.

Mr D M said that his personal problems had started at around that time and that his behaviour started to deviate from that time.

On a question from a Member about how he can explain the chronology of incidents over the last 8 years – Mr D M responded that he was a lot younger and not thinking of consequences then.  He felt that he had nothing to lose then. In relation to the incident from24.03.15 he said that he felt the girl who complained was over exaggerating; he was entitled to the full fare and was not aware that there was a road closed. He said he already had her over a barrel as he was the only taxi in the rank, so he had no need to stronghold her.  Mr D M also said that he had had anger management therapy in the last couple of years and that he had learned how to control his temper and that when he  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

The Senior Public Protection Officer summarised the updated report and invited the Sub-Committee to determine the issue.  The Senior Public Protection Officer provided Members with copies of the statement from Mr J R with his version of events leading to the Caution, together with a copy of the Police Caution. The meeting was adjourned to allow Members time to read these documents.

After the meeting reconvened, Mr J R stated his case.  Mr J R said that he had made a mistake and that he was one to blame.  Mr J R apologised for his actions on 17th August 2015 and added that this was a one off incident which had happened whilst he was off duty.

Mr J R made a closing statement by saying that he had learnt a lesson and apologised for his actions on 17th August 2015.

Following an adjournment, it was RESOLVED to issue Mr J R with a stern warning in relation to his conduct.

Reasons

Members have had to determine what action to take against a licensed driver having obtained a caution during the course of his Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence.  In doing so they took account of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976, Human Rights Act 1998, case law and Council Policy.

This matter came before the LSC on 15th December 2015 when the Licensee failed to attend and whilst the Licensee had consented to the matter being dealt with in his absence Members were concerned about the circumstances of the matter and deferred for his attendance.

Members took into account the Licensee’s oral representations, statement and balanced these against the formal police caution.

The Licensee was very apologetic towards the LSC for his conduct and said that he had expressed his remorse to the Licensing officers and the police involved in the incident. He explained that he was off duty when the incident took place, that it was out of character and that he has taken steps to improve his lifestyle since. Furthermore, he informed Members that he had learnt his lesson.

Members noted that the Council’s Policy states that a licensee is expected not to have been cautioned by the police within the previous 2 years. Members were mindful that each case will be decided on its own merits and may depart from the policy where there are reasons for doing so. In this case the formal police caution was received in September 2015. Whilst this falls squarely within the policy Members felt that there were reasons to depart from it, those reasons being Mr J R’s remorse, the fact that this was a one off incident that was out of character; Members were satisfied Mr J R had learnt his lesson and had taken steps to avoid this happening again.  Members therefore took the view that Mr J R remained a fit and proper person to hold a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence however, they took a very dim view of his behaviour and therefore issued  ...  view the full minutes text for item 111.