Agenda item

In attendance – Licensee.

The Licensing Officer presented the report to the Sub-Committee (LSC).  He advised Members to consider the matters, determine the issues and take any action they may consider suitable after hearing the representation from the Licensee.

The Licensee explained the circumstances why he had not submitted his insurance documents on time and apologised for this.  He added it was on a fleet policy not individual so he was not aware the documents had not been received by the Council.  It was confirmed that the onus was on the proprietor to submit these documents not any third party.  It was also confirmed that the policy had not changed in this respect since 2018.  The Licensee confirmed he had been in business for 30 years and it was the first time this had happened.  He had had up to 40 vehicles licensed and he was only human and made an odd mistake.  Since COVID all the processes went on-line and he was not good with computers and sent his documents via his insurance broker.  He had not checked if they had been received.  The Licensing Officer confirmed that he had also missed submitting his MOT certificate on time so there were repeated breaches which was why the Licensee had been referred to the Licensing Sub-Committee.  He confirmed that each Licensee attended the office and received and signed a copy of the terms and conditions, so the Licensee did have a copy of the terms and conditions of his licence.

The meeting adjourned for Members to consider the representations.

All parties were invited back into the meeting.  The Chair stated to the Licensee that it was important for him to understand the severity of the situation, his cumulative behaviour of repeated breaches over a few years in non-compliance with not submitting his documents on time and losing his Operator’s licence.  Earlier he had only referred to the current breach when he had not submitted his insurance documents on time.  The Sub-Committee wanted him to have every opportunity to explain all of the issues not just having not submitted his insurance documents on time.

 At the request of the Chair, the Legal Adviser went through each breach of the licensing terms and conditions with the Licensee, in order to give him the opportunity to provide his account.  On 23^rd January 2020 the Licensee had received a final warning for failure to explain a gap in MOT cover.  He had been advised that if he came before the Sub-Committee again he would be at risk of revocation of his licence.

The Licensee stated he always told the truth and did not lie but this was dismissed.  He added that he was under a lot of pressure, not sleeping as his livelihood was at stake.  He was more concerned about his drivers.  He stated he had asked for a full copy of the terms and conditions of the licence.  The Licensing Officer confirmed that there was a copy on file of the terms and conditions signed by the Licensee.  The Licensee said there was an issue with the Midsomer Norton taxi rank that he wanted Members to be aware of so had wanted to be referred to the Licensing Sub-Committee.  He stated he had not been allowed to tell the truth about the gap in MOT cover. 

The Licensee was advised to tell the Sub-Committee what he needed to and to tell the truth.  He said on three occasions they (the Sub-Committee) had gone against him.  He made the odd mistake and apologised for this and had been in the profession for 30 years.  He took the rules seriously and learned from his mistakes.  The Chair confirmed he had a final warning in 2020 and yet had further breached his terms and conditions.

In relation to losing his Operator’s Licence in 2021, the Licensee explained that he had made payment to a driver though he had not produced his invoices.  The driver went to court and had received a County Court Judgement (CCJ) against him.  He did not think he should have lost his Operator’s Licence for this.  It had taken the Licensee a long time to find a solicitor and he had offered to make a further payment to the driver but this had been refused and since that time he had no further response.  Since then he had made changes and did not make any payments to his drivers without them producing invoices.  He was hoping to go back to court for the decision to be overturned.

The Licensing Officer stated that the solicitor had reported a few months ago that no payment or offer had been received by the driver.

The Licensee confirmed that he undertook home to school contracts and that he had spoken to the Transport Team and he did not need an Operator License to do this work. 

In respect of the current breach, not producing his insurance documents on time, the Licensee said he had some problems with his insurance broker and would not use them next year.  He repeated that he was not good with computers and paperwork and no longer had office staff to help him with this.  The Licensing Officer noted the Licensee did 35 school runs and asked him if he had provided all the appropriate paperwork to the Passenger Transport required to obtain the contracts.  The Licensee said he had no problems with the Transport Section. 

One of the Councillors on the Sub-Committee said that he was disturbed by the Licensee’s comment that if he was honest, he would be dismissed and as far as the Councillor was concerned, the Licensee was saying that to all of them. The Councillor asked if the Licensee was satisfied that the Committee would make their own judgement and consider if he was fit and proper?  The Licensee responded that he was and had spoken the truth on 3 previous occasions but had not been believed.  He said that was what he was referring to.

The Licensee produced an email from his Solicitor about the CCJ payment which was read out to the Sub-Committee.  This confirmed that the cheque sent by the Licensee to the driver had still not been cashed and was now out of date.  The Solicitor stated that this was extremely strange.  The payment had been processed via the Solicitor.

The Sub-Committee adjourned to consider the decision and it was RESOLVED

Decision and reasons

Members have had to consider whether or not the licensee is fit and proper to continue 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 Hackney Carriage Proprietors licences. In doing so Members took account of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, Human Rights Act 1998, case law and the Council’s Policy.

Members heard from the Licensee in oral representations and he was taken through each of his previous appearances before Committee in January 2020, October 2021 and January 2022 and asked to give Members his account in relation to the matters leading to those appearances.

In relation to his appearance before Committee in 2020 the Licensee indicated that he had been in business for 30 years at that time and had approximately 40 vehicles. He asked Members to consider the relatively minor amount of non-compliance in this context. He explained that he did understand the warning that he received at that time from the Committee and felt he was compliant going forwards.

The Licensee addressed the matters which led to the revocation of his Private Hire Operator’s licence in October 2021 and his position was that he did not think his licence should have been revoked as a result of one financial matter.

In relation to his non-compliance with the insurance conditions which led to his appearance today, the Licensee’s account was consistent with his e-mail dated 22.05.22 at Annex B, namely that he had asked his insurance broker to forward the certificates and they had failed to do so. He accepted before the Committee that this was his responsibility and that he fully understood this now, he apologised for this failing.

The Licensee explained to Members that he did appreciate the severity of his appearance before them and it has had an impact upon him. He promised Members that there would not be a further breach of conditions and if there was, he would voluntarily give back his licence.

Members noted that:

- on 23.01.20 the Licensee received a final warning from the Licensing Sub Committee in relation to his Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence as a result of a failure to produce an MOT certificate within 7 days of the previous MOT expiry date and repeated failures to provide an explanation to the licensing authority for a gap in MOT cover. This was in breach of his Hackney Carriage licence conditions. The warning given by the Licensing Sub Committee was clear and unequivocal:

- He should be in no doubt that he must comply with the terms and conditions of his Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Licences with BANES.

- He should comply with requests of the Public Protection Team (or any successor team) in the timescales given in the administration and enforcement of his licences.

- He should be civil and professional in his dealings with the Council and its representatives.

- If he comes before the LSC again in relation to his future conduct, against this background, he will be at strong risk of revocation.

- On 07.10.21 the Licensee’s Private Hire Operator’s Licence was revoked at Licensing Sub Committee following a complaint relating to financial conduct. In the circumstances, Members did not consider him to be fit and proper to continue to hold a Private Hire Operator’s Licence.

- On 16.05.22 the Licensee received a warning and 4 penalty points on his BANES licence for failure to produce certificates of insurance for two Hackney Carriage Vehicles almost 3 months after they should have been supplied to the Council. It is not the responsibility of the licensee’s insurance broker to provide copies of the certificates to the Council, this is the Licensee’s responsibility.

Members carefully considered the written and oral representations made by the Licensee however he has a number of breaches of condition on his record which seem to arise out of carelessness at one end of the spectrum to wilful non-compliance for misguided motives at the other end. He had his operator's licence revoked in October 2021 on the basis that he was no longer considered to be fit and proper in that role. He has two previous appearances before this Committee where his fit and proper status as a Combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver has been examined. On the first of those occasions, he received a clear and unequivocal warning in relation to his conduct, that warning is noted above.

Compliance with the conditions on his licences is vital so that the Council can be assured that there is no danger to the safety of the public when travelling in his BANES licensed vehicles.

In this case, when looking at this Licensee's track record as a whole, Members have concluded that the Licensee does not heed warnings nor act on advice, given to ensure the safety of the travelling public, and his conduct has not improved, consequently Members can no longer be satisfied that he is fit and proper to hold a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver's Licence. 

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