Agenda item

The Sub-Committee considered the report, which sought consideration of Mr BTG’s medical condition.

Mr BTG was present. He confirmed that he understood the procedure for the hearing.

The Senior Public Protection Officer presented the report and then circulated a hospital report on Mr BT G and a statement of support from his GP. Members took time to study these.

Mr BTG put his case and was questioned. He also made a closing statement. 

Following an adjournment it was

RESOLVED that Mr BT G’s combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s licence be revoked.

The Chair reminded Mr BTG that his licence had been due for renewal in February 2015, and noted that he was scheduled to have a further medical examination in December this year. She advised him that if the medical examination showed that his eyesight had improved sufficiently, he could make a licence application then and did not have to wait until February 2015.

Decision and reasons

Members have had to determine whether to take any action against a licensee having disclosed a medical condition during the duration of his licence.  In doing so they have taken account of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, Human Rights Act 1998, Council’s Policy, case law and the DVLA current medical guidelines for professional drivers.

Members listened carefully to the representations from the licensee who said he was fine to drive a private vehicle and his insurance is happy to insure him at no extra cost for driving his taxi. He stated the TIA was a minor incident, his physical fitness was fine and the vision in his right eye was improving. He considered the DVLA guidance could be disregarded because a lot of taxi driver’s time is spent waiting to pick up fares rather than driving like bus or lorry drivers.

Members noted a letter from his GP raised issues of personal circumstances. Members were, however, careful to disregard personal circumstance as these must only be taken into account in exceptional circumstances but in any event must not override the protection of the public. In reaching a determination therefore Members had regard to relevant representations and disregarded irrelevant representations. Accordingly, Members noted the licensee informed the office on 30 May 2014 that he had suffered a TIA or “mini stroke.” The effect of this was a loss of vision in his right eye with a diagnosis of right central retinal occlusion and bilateral open angle glaucoma. Members therefore had regard to the DVLA’s guidance which stated a “licence should be revoked for 1 year following a stroke (TIA) and that an application for a licence should be reconsidered at the expiry of this period provided there was no residual impairment affecting safe driving. Members also had regard to an ophthalmic consultant’s report which stated the licensee did not meet the criteria required by the DVLA.

Members found the matter fell within the DVLA’s guidance and considered the licensee presented a serious risk to the fare paying public and other road users should he continue to be licensed due to his eyesight issues. Accordingly, and whilst there is discretion whether to follow the DVLA guidance, Members had heard nothing to persuade them not to follow the guidance and therefore revoke the licence with immediate effect.