Agenda and minutes

The Democratic Services Officer drew attention to the Emergency Evacuation Procedure.

Councillor Toby Simon had sent his apologies to the Sub-Committee, Councillor George Tomlin was present as his substitute for the duration of the meeting.

Councillor Steve Hedges had sent his apologies to the Sub-Committee, Councillor Shaun Hughes was present as his substitute for the duration of the meeting.

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 3^rd April 2025 and 17^th April 2025 and they were duly signed by the Chair.

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 explained that they were being asked whether the licensee remains fit and proper to hold their combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Drivers licence issued by this authority.

Councillor Shaun Hughes asked for confirmation that despite not providing their insurance documents on time to the Licensing department, the licensee’s vehicle had always been covered.

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) replied that the licensee’s vehicle had always had valid insurance cover in place. They also confirmed that an insurance certificate has to be sent to the Licensing department within 7 working days of the expiry of the certificate.

The licensee addressed the Sub-Committee to explain the points raised within the report.

The licensee referred to the incident on 7^th September 2015 when an allegation of overcharging had been made against them. They said that on this evening some previous customers had ran away and not paid their fare and so he had asked for a deposit and would repay any difference at the end of the journey.

The licensee stated that on completion of the journey they had offered change, just under £2, but this had not been taken by the last person to leave the vehicle.

The licensee referred to the incident on 25th June 2015 when an allegation of refusing to drop a customer at their requested destination and being rude and aggressive had been made against them. They said that when taking a customer to Wellsway Dental Practice they had tried to explain that they could not park directly outside as it is a very busy road and wanted the customer to be safe. If the customer had opened the door they would have been at risk. The licensee said that they parked in a side road which was just a short walk away from the destination.

The licensee referred to the incident on 4th March 2025 when a complaint had been received from a member of the public alleging that they had been falling asleep during their journey, and that their vehicle was in poor condition. The licensee said that they had noticed that there was less pressure in one of their tyres, but said the customer had insisted they continue the journey. They said that when requested to do so they took their vehicle for an inspection from the Licensing team.

The licensee said that on the journey to Fairfield Park they had not been falling asleep and that the roads there were so narrow if they had been they would have surely had an accident. The licensee informed the Sub-Committee that they had received racist abuse while carrying out this journey.

The licensee referred to the incident on 10th March 2024, alleging that they were falling asleep during the journey and weaving on the road in their vehicle. The licensee said that they had been driving slowly while going down Dunkerton Hill and swerved at one point to avoid hitting a badger.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 165.

Members were due to consider the licensee’s application for renewal of their combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s licence however, information came to light prior to the hearing that they had lodged an appeal to the Crown Court against the decision of the Bath Magistrates’ Court to dismiss their appeal.

Members were aware that the licensee’s solicitor had been informed of the intended deferral and that the licensee’s attendance before the Licensing Sub-Committee today was not required.

In those circumstances, Members determined that it was appropriate to defer the determination of the renewal application until after the Crown Court appeal had been concluded.

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) introduced the report to the Sub-Committee. He explained that they were being asked to determine whether the application for a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Drivers licence should be granted by this authority.

The applicant’s DBS certificate was shared by the Public Protection Officer (Licensing) with the Members.

Councillor George Tomlin asked for confirmation of when the Council considers a conviction to be expired.

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) replied that this was normally five years after the date of conviction.

The applicant addressed the Sub-Committee and stated that their conviction in 2016 was for a totting up of offences and that they had learnt from these incidents.

The applicant informed the Sub-Committee that they were a Designated Premises Supervisor and a personal licence holder under the Licensing Act 2003.

The applicant said that if successful they intended to drive for a well established company within Bath and stated that they have no other convictions.

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) asked the applicant if they remember the offence listed on the DBS certificate that led to the conviction.

The applicant replied that they did not remember the incident.

The Team Leader, Legal Services asked the applicant if they could recall any matter involving drink driving and excess alcohol.

The applicant replied that they could not, but acknowledged that they had made a mistake.

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) commented that he felt that such an incident would be at least memorable in some way.

The applicant replied that this had been around 10 years ago and that they have tried to put it out of their mind.

Councillor Shaun Hughes said that clarity on this issue would be useful and asked the applicant if they had been stopped by the Police whilst driving.

The applicant replied that they had and that they remember being taken to Melksham Police Station. They added that they were breathalysed at the roadside and at the station. The applicant said that they had failed the test, but not by so much to warrant a direct conviction, hence the totting up conviction that has been received, as they had over 12 points on their licence. There had also been a court date.

Councillor George Tomlin asked if the applicant has had a clean driving licence since that time.

The applicant said that they have and that they have driven many miles in that time for their job.

Councillor George Tomlin asked the applicant if they would ever drink alcohol and drive again.

The applicant replied that they would not and stated that they wanted this new role to become their career.

The applicant made a summing up statement and said that they had learnt from their mistakes, were trying to move on with their life and had proved that they are now a different person.

Decision & Reasons

Members have had to consider if the applicant is fit and proper to be granted a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s licence in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 167.

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) introduced the report to the Sub-Committee. He explained that they were being asked to consider whether the licensee remains fit and proper to hold a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Drivers licence issued by this authority, following a complaint of a safeguarding nature received by Licensing.

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) explained that one piece of additional information had been received since the agenda pack had been published. He said that this was an email from BANES Passenger Transport dated 22^nd April 2025 indicating that the licensee had been removed from their approved drivers list.

Councillor Shaun Hughes asked for confirmation that despite not providing their MOT and insurance documents on time to the Licensing department, the licensee’s vehicle had always been covered.

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) replied that the licensee’s vehicle had always had valid MOT and insurance cover in place.

The licensee addressed the Sub-Committee regarding the safeguarding complaint and stated that they had made an out of character act and was not a threat to the children that had been travelling in their vehicle. The licensee said that they were sad that the children had been upset and that they hadn’t appeared to be on the day of the journey. They stated that they would not do the same thing again and were saddened by their actions.

The licensee said that at the time they were under some pressure from attempting to start a new business and had already agreed to pick up a friend prior to accepting the school run.

The licensee explained that they had not declared to Veezu that they were picking up a friend, now a driver in their business, as they didn’t want them to know that they were forming their own business.

The licensee said that the children appeared to be ok on arrival at school, but having seen the text messages to their parents they understand how they felt at the time.

The licensee said that they had not answered a call on the journey initially as they were driving and was then informed by one of the children that it was their mum trying to call.

The licensee stated that there had been no previous incidents relating to their driving.

Councillor Ann Morgan asked if they had learned from the incident.

The licensee replied that they had and understood the decision taken by the Passenger Transport Team.

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) asked the licensee who they had spoken to on the phone during the journey.

The licensee replied that it was a Veezu operator.

Councillor Shaun Hughes asked for clarification as to who the licensee was picking up that morning and where they needed to take them to.

The licensee replied that it was a friend, another taxi driver, whose car had broken down and that they were taking them back to their vehicle that was in Victoria Park. They said that the request had then come through to cover a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 168.