Agenda and 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.

The Chair, Councillor Steve Hedges, informed the meeting that he had previously helped one of the persons attending in support of a Licensee with a planning application as he lives within his ward. He stated that this in no way would have any impact on his impartiality during the meeting.

All parties present were asked if they had any objection to the Chair remaining in the meeting and all declared that they did not.

There was none.

The Sub-Committee RESOLVED to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 11^th July 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. 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.

Following his summary of the report the Public Protection Officer (Licensing) showed the Sub-Committee a video, around 30 seconds in length, of the conclusion of the latest alleged incident which had been filmed by the complainant whilst driving.

The licensee addressed the Sub-Committee and began by thanking the Public Protection Officer (Licensing) for his part in this process. The licensee explained that he had brought with him a number of written submissions, that comprised of a personal statement, accompanied by 18 annexes, which included some character references.

The Sub-Committee asked the licensee and his representative to retire whilst these were considered for a short period of time.

On resumption of the meeting the licensee’s representative addressed the Sub-Committee. He stated that the licensee was a dedicated and exemplary driver who was responsible, meticulous and punctual.

He added that the licensee’s role involves driving school runs, that he has a friendly demeanour, is dedicated to his work and provides an invaluable service to the local community.

The Lead Officer (Licensing) queried part of the personal statement submitted by the licensee. He said that he did not agree that he had said words to the effect of ‘having a taxi sign on your roof makes you a target’. He believed that whilst advising the licensee about his behaviour following a previous incident that he had said that whilst having this role as a taxi driver their vehicles are more noticeable and could therefore be more open to complaints.

The licensee acknowledged this and agreed that they had had previous conversations about his behaviour.

Councillor Toby Simon referred to the video clip that they had been shown and asked the licensee if he had been using the taxi / bus lane to make his progress through that area of city (Churchill Bridge Roundabout).

The licensee replied that this was correct and that the video was taken after the complainant had cut him up on the Wellsway. He added that he was signing to the complainant that she should not be using her phone whilst driving.

He stated that in no way was he trying to antagonise the situation and that his wife was with him in his vehicle at the time. He said that the complainant had brake checked him during the journey down the Wellsway into the city centre and that when he left the Churchill Bridge Roundabout he pulled into the nearby petrol station.

The Lead Officer (Licensing) asked, after the initial incident on the Bear Flat, why he didn’t take the decision to not engage any further with the complainant.

The licensee replied that he had not been driving aggressively and that he had probably flashed his lights at the complainant because he was shocked by the manner in which she was behaving. He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

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.

He apologised for an error in the report at section 3.3 and said that the date referred to should be 18^th March 2024, not 2023.

The Team Leader, Legal Services explained that the Sub-Committee had received the witness statements that had been provided by the licensee’s solicitor.

The licensee’s solicitor addressed the Sub-Committee and said that he questioned the Council’s decision to suspend the licensee following the most recent alleged incident. He said that this was tricky to respond to as no further correspondence had been received from the complainant.

He said that the licensee has no convictions against him and that two of the incidents that the Council had been made aware of, as part of an information sharing agreement with the Police, predate the licensee’s initial application.

The licensee’s solicitor asked the licensee to give his account of the alleged Uber incident on 9^th March 2024.

The licensee said that he was first made aware of the incident when contacted by the Licensing department on 9^th April 2024. He said that he didn’t know anything about it and that it must be false. He explained that having initially checked his list of jobs for 9^th March 2024 he had realised that it would have been recorded as a journey that would have been carried out on 8^th March 2024 due to the system used by Uber.

The licensee said that he had not intended to deceive anyone by his initial denial. He added that he has a 4.99 out of 5 rating on Uber and has carried out 1,000s of journeys.

The licensee’s solicitor asked the licensee about his work ethic.

The licensee said that he always waits for his passengers to engage in conversation with him first.

The licensee’s solicitor asked the licensee to give his account of the alleged Veezu incident in 2023 when he had been accused of putting his hand down the trousers of a male passenger.

The licensee replied that this allegation was not true and that he was only made aware of it when the Police visited his home around two weeks after the date of the journey in question. He stated that he showed the Police the dashcam footage from his vehicle and that no further action was taken.

He stated that the booking for this journey had been made by a female on behalf of a male passenger who wanted to travel to Bristol from Bath. He explained that it was booked as ‘cash job’, but that on commencement of the journey the male passenger said that he did not have any money on him.

The licensee said that they agreed to drive to a cashpoint at the Tesco Express on Windsor Bridge, but the male passenger was unable to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.