Agenda item

The Lead Officer - Licensing presented the report to the Sub-Committee. He explained that the Sub-Committee are asked to consider the matter, determine the issue and take any action it may consider suitable after hearing any representation from the licensee or any representative acting on their behalf.

The members of the Sub-Committee and Team Leader, Legal Services asked questions of the licensee regarding each of the complaints against him and he responded accordingly.

Decision and Reasons

Members have had to consider whether or not the applicant is fit and proper to continue to hold his combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s licence in the light of a complaint regarding a number of incidents, received against him. In doing so Members took account of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, Human Rights Act 1998, case law, Council Policy, the written account of the complaint, the applicant’s oral representations and the Local Authority Designated Officer’s written representations.

Members heard from the licensee in oral representations who explained that he was no longer doing the Home to School runs and had no desire to go back to doing them. The licensee accepted that he had completed the safeguarding course in January this year and that covered how and who to report any safeguarding concerns to. He explained that he did not report anything because he thought it would have “fallen on deaf ears” and explained that the particular run needs an escort, something which he also admitted he had not reported. The licensee indicated in oral representations that things had been taken out of context but in hindsight he wishes he had not made the comment regarding the weed.

On questioning, the licensee was asked why he thought the girl had made an unprompted complaint and his explanation for this was that she had a reputation for telling tales and she had overreacted. On questioning, he accepted he was not there and could not comment on her reaction.

The licensee was taken through each of the allegations made against him and his oral representations were in accordance with his account in interview under caution at Annex C of the report. In essence, whilst he accepted some of the allegations, he said they were taken out of context and with the benefit of hindsight he should have done some things differently. He accepted that he that should not have said the comment he did in relation to cannabis. He apologised to members if he had caused concern and could not understand why the allegations were made.

Members read a statement from BANES’ Local Authority Designated Officer at Annex D of the report, which set out her concerns that the licensee had, broadly:

-  Engaged in a conversation that was not appropriate

-  Failed to report to the transport team or school, significant incidents during the journey which related to the children’s behaviour being difficult to manage

-  Been given information that suggests a child has suffered harm or is at risk of suffering harm and failed to report that, which should have been done immediately to school or the transport team

-  Made no record of what the child said, which means the relevant agencies have no clarity as to what was said and when the incident may have taken place

-  Despite recent safeguarding training he has failed to act upon safeguarding concerns

-  Apparently not taken any responsibility for his lack of action or communication.

Members noted that:

- the licensee has continually held a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence with BANES since 2008 but worked within the taxi trade on and off for 31 years.

- the licensee’s conduct was such that a female child had broken down at school and talked about how she hates and dreads her taxi journeys to school each day and provided a report to a member of school staff as per Annex B of the report.

-the licensee admitted that a child had disclosed his mother’s cannabis use to him and he had failed to report this as a safeguarding concern.

- the licensee admitted that one of the children disclosed watching porn hub (which was additional information that came to light during the hearing) and that his brother “tried to force his head on him” but had failed to report this safeguarding concern.

- The licensee said that in all the times he had been taxi-ing there had never been another complaint about him, but he then went on to say “In all this time I can count all the incidents on one hand but never had any complaints”

Members note that they can have regard to hearsay evidence. Weighing in the balance the complainants’ evidence, the fact that another mother had reported similar concerns to the school and the number of admissions made by the licensee - albeit his claim was they were taken out of context - they prefer the complainants’ evidence. They found that the licensee minimised the allegations and did not appreciate their seriousness.

The licensee had completed a compulsory approved Safeguarding Course approximately 2 months before the complaint but had failed to report numerous matters, which in the view of the LADO were a safeguarding concern, one of which a child was alleged to have suffered harm or be at risk of suffering harm.

Members noted that the licensee’s operator had immediately taken him off Home to School contracts upon receipt of the complaint.

On balance, for the reasons noted above, the LADO’s written observations, admissions recorded herein and in the interview under caution, Members find that the applicant is no longer fit and proper to hold a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s licence and revoke his licence on notice pursuant to section 61(2A) of Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

Authority is delegated to the Licencing Officer to revoke the licence pursuant to section 61(2A).