Agenda item

In attendance – Licensee and his wife.

The Licensing Officer presented the report to the Sub-Committee.  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 and his wife presented his case together.  They stated they had to amend the insurance mid-term to add a family member and had to do it on the phone before they went on holiday.  Once they were away and he forgot about it.  Previously the Licensee had worked for someone else and they had sorted all the paperwork out, sending reminders to submit insurance and MOT certificates.  The Licensee acknowledged that he should have known as he signed the terms and conditions.

With respect to the MOT, that was also before a holiday and when the vehicle had failed the MOT it had not been used as a taxi.  However, when they needed to be picked up from the airport a family member had used the vehicle to collect them.  He thought he was able to drive as the car was less than 3 years old so would not usually need an MOT.  The Licensee used a different garage for the MOT, for the repairs he had used the main dealer so had driven the vehicle between the two garages.  Though his car was relatively new it had been recalled to the main dealer 3-4 times.  The Licensing Officer confirmed that any taxi needed an MOT after one year and was considered a taxi 24 hours a day 365 days of the year.  Moving forward the Licensee confirmed he would be working for his previous employer again.  This way there would be no further breaches as he would get daily reminders for insurance and MOT documents.  The Chair stressed that ultimately the responsibility was the Licensee’s.

The Licensing Officer confirmed that he had dealt with the Licensee for a long time and he always engaged with him and was good with the public.

Following an adjournment for Members to consider their decision it was RESOLVED

Decision and reasons

Members have had to consider whether or not the Licensee is fit and proper 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 and his wife in oral representations who acknowledged the errors that had been made and provided Members with credible explanations, albeit wrong, for what had happened. They explained that they had put measures in place to ensure that this would not happen again, and these measures include daily reminders, for each of the 7 days prior to expiry of their MOT, for example.

Members noted that the Licensee had been licensed with the authority since 2010 and acknowledged the Lead Licensing Officer’s comments that in all other respects he works well as a licensed driver.

Members found the Licensee’s account to be credible and they noted that he has now put measures in place to ensure his future compliance with the conditions on his BANES licences. In these circumstances they are satisfied that he remains fit and proper to continue to hold his Combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence however, they issue a final warning in the strongest possible terms that:

-  He must abide by all of the conditions on his BANES license(s) and this is his responsibility.

-  He must remember that whilst his vehicle(s) is licensed it is a taxi 24 hours a day 365 days a year and he must be mindful of how this may affect the MOT and insurance position.

-  If he appears before the LSC again then he is at risk of revocation.