Agenda and draft minutes

The Democratic Services Officer drew attention to the Emergency Evacuation 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.

(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 4.4 Appendix 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 Officer or a member of his staff before the meeting to expedite dealing with the item during the meeting.

There were none.

There was none.

The Sub-Committee RESOLVED to approve the minutes of the meetings held on 25th July 2024 and 1^st August 2024.

The Chair referenced the procedure that would be followed during the course of the meeting.

Those that were present confirmed that they had received and understood the licensing procedure.

The Sub-Committee is asked to consider passing the following resolution:

“the Sub-Committee 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, RESOLVES that the public shall 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.   

The members of the Sub-Committee agreed that they were 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.

It was RESOLVED that the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items 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.

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) introduced the report to the Sub-Committee. She stated that they were being asked to determine whether a licensee remains fit and proper to hold their combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s licence.

The licensee began by circulating to the members letters of support from drivers within his company and reviews that had been received from his customers.

He addressed the Sub-Committee and explained that he has had a difficult past few years personally which had led to the oversight of renewing his MOT. He acknowledged that this was his error and understood the need for all documents to be in place at the correct time.

He stated that he runs a successful business and employs a number of drivers on a full / part time basis.

He said that the vehicle in question had no advisories / concerns found during the MOT inspection.

He stated that he asks all of his drivers to inspect their vehicles on a regular basis.

He said that he runs his company in a professional manner, has received no complaints from members of the public and that a number of well-known companies use his business on a regular basis.

He explained that he had recently implemented the use of an app for all drivers to use that requires them to sign in every time they begin to work and carry out a number of vehicle checks before driving.

The Chair asked how many jobs were carried out by the vehicle in question whilst it was without an MOT for six weeks.

The licensee replied that within that period only three jobs had been carried out.

The licensee made a summing up statement to the Sub-Committee. He said that he has a good business in place and understands the seriousness of the situation that he has ended up in. He added that he has respect for the officers within the Licensing Department.

The licensee read aloud two statements from drivers within his company who both said that vehicle safety is always maintained to a high standard, the company was a professional organisation and it has high standards of customer service.

The Lead Officer (Licensing) stated that the licensee’s Operator’s Licence was not part of the Sub-Committee’s determination at the meeting today.

Decision & Reasons

Members have had to consider whether or not the licensee is a fit and proper person to continue to hold his combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s licence and in the light of failures to comply with the license conditions relating to an MOT certificate.  In doing so Members took account of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, Human Rights Act 1998, case law and the Council Policy.

Members considered the officers report and heard from officers and considered the written and oral submissions from the licensee.  Officers stated that Mr Bowen has been compliant with provision of information.

The Licensee appreciated and understood why he was before the committee.  He explained that he had himself alerted the Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

The Lead Officer (Licensing) introduced the report to the Sub-Committee. He stated that they were being asked to determine whether a licensee remains fit and proper to hold their combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s licence.

Councillor Toby Simon asked if all relevant medical information had now been supplied to the Licensing Department.

The Lead Officer (Licensing) confirmed that it had now been received.

The licensee addressed the Sub-Committee and stated that he had been under the impression that the vehicle he had purchased came with 12 months MOT cover and that he was also expecting to receive a renewal reminder from the company that he had purchased the vehicle from.

He explained that once he was aware of the need to have the vehicle inspected, he did so and there were no advisories or concerns in respect of the vehicle.

He acknowledged that this was his mistake, apologised and said that he hoped that it would not happen again.

Decision & Reasons

Members have had to consider whether or not the Licensee is a fit and proper person to continue to hold his combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s licence in the light of failures to comply with the conditions of his licence relating to an MOT certificate.  In doing so Members took account of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, Human Rights Act 1998, case law and the Council Policy.

Members considered the report from officers and written and oral submissions from the Licensee.

Members noted that when the Licensee applied on 23 May 2024 to renew his license, discrepancies in the continuity of MOT certificates were noted.  The MOT had expired on 12 November 2023 and the new certificate supplied with his renewal application on 23 May 2024 showed a break in the MOT certificates of three months.  During that time the vehicle had been driven constantly as a Hackney Carriage vehicle, so putting fare paying passengers and other road users and pedestrians at potential risk for a considerable time. Members noted that the Licensee had failed to inform licensing officers of this breach of conditions.

Members noted that the Licensee has a history of breaches of the conditions of his license and of inappropriate communication with licensing officers.

The Licensee explained that he had thought the vehicle had been purchased with a twelve month MOT certificate, however that had not been the case.  He had also been expecting to receive a reminder for the renewal of his MOT from the garage that had sold him the vehicle, but that did not happen.  He had only noticed the MOT had lapsed when renewing his insurance and had then obtained a new MOT certificate without advisories.

Members noted the tone of the licensee’s previous communication with licensing officers in 2022 and 2023 and the failure to provide timely medical information as required by his license conditions.

The Licensee apologised to the committee.  He explained that it was an oversight due to believing the car had been purchased with a full  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) introduced the report to the Sub-Committee. He stated that they were being asked to determine whether a licensee remains fit and proper to hold their combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s licence.

The licensee addressed the Sub-Committee and said that he simply does the best that he can, has had no accidents and no complaints made against him.

He stated that the incident involving his wife has nothing to do with his role as a taxi driver, should not be considered and said that this is an ongoing matter with the Police.

The Chair asked if the licensee could explain why his wife had been driving a licensed vehicle.

The licensee replied that he was completely unaware that she had done so and was shocked to have found this out.

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) stated that this information had been included in the report as the vehicle with that particular registration number that had been driven by his wife was licensed at the time of her speeding offence in July 2022.

The licensee replied that it was his view that this was mistake and that the plates of vehicles had changed in April 2022.

Councillor Toby Simon commented that the licensee currently had 9 points on his driving licence in relation to 3 active speeding convictions and that this was against the Council’s Policy to be able to hold a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s licence.

Councillor Simon asked the licensee if he could explain why had not complied with the conditions of his licence to display his vehicle roof sign, personal ID badge and in-car identification whilst on a journey to Bristol Airport on 17th August 2023.

The licensee replied that the roof sign had been removed due to motorway use on the way to the airport and he had forgotten to replace it. He added that he had not realised that he was not wearing his personal ID badge and that the in-car identification was within the glove box of the vehicle. He apologised for this being the case.

Councillor Simon asked the licensee why he had not taken his vehicle for an MOT prior to it expiring.

The licensee replied that he had originally believed that the vehicle had been purchased with a 12-month MOT. He explained that the vehicle had actually only had 11 months and 1 weeks’ worth of MOT when purchased. He said that once this had been realised he contacted his garage to arrange for an MOT to take place. He added that on inspection the vehicle the vehicle failed the MOT as one of the tyres was below the minimum tread limit, but that this could not be replaced on the day as the required tyre was not in stock.

He explained to the Sub-Committee that the vehicle was left at a garage around 400 yards away overnight, before the tyre was replaced the following day.

Councillor Simon asked the licensee to confirm that the vehicle had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.