Agenda item

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) introduced the report to the Sub-Committee. He explained that they were being asked to determine whether a driver remains fit and proper to hold a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Drivers licence.

He outlined the key points from the report and stated that additional information, correspondence between the driver and himself, had also been circulated to the Sub-Committee prior to the meeting.

The Chairman invited the First Complainant into the meeting. He and the Team Leader, Legal Services asked her to confirm that the content of the statement made on 27^th October 2022 was true and accurate and asked her to confirm some of the specific points from within it.

The First Complainant confirmed that the statement was true and accurate.

The driver was given the opportunity to ask questions of the First Complainant through the Chairman but he did not have any questions that he wanted to ask.

The Chairman asked the driver if his recollection of the journey involving the First Complainant was similar to the statement that she had made.

The driver replied that it was not.

The members of the Sub-Committee thanked the First Complainant for attending the meeting. She then left the room as the meeting continued.

The Chairman asked the driver to address them on why he believed he should remain considered as fit and proper to hold his licence and referred him to each of the annexes from the report.

The driver informed the Sub-Committee that he had a high rating as an Uber driver and that over 15 years he had provided journeys for around 200,000 customers. He added that he has a clean driving licence and has not been convicted of any action.

He said that on the journey of 17^th October 2022, it was 5/6 months ago, and he does not remember word by word the conversation, he only engaged in usual small talk with the First Complainant and that you can judge if some customers will want to talk or not. He added that many times the customer will say please I don’t want to talk, I have just broken up with my boyfriend or something like that.

He denied saying that the First Complainant ‘…can read men’s minds and you’re beautiful’ and that he did not offer her his mobile number. He added that he could not recall the whole conversation.

The Chairman asked the driver if he had said that he would ‘…lay his seat back’ when nearing the home of the First Complainant.

The driver replied that he did not.

The Chairman explained that a statement had also been made by a friend of the First Complainant who was at home at the time of the journey and that she had received a text message to say that ‘…her driver was acting a bit weird and that she felt uncomfortable’. He added that the friend had agreed to meet the First Complainant at home after asking to be dropped at the end of their road. The driver said if this is escalated to court, he would request phone data.

The Chairman asked the driver about the incident in February 2013 involving parking enforcement officers and the driver moving back and forth on the single and double yellow lines. The driver said that there was a period of time where he was chased by parking officers, he confirmed that he was solely driving back and forth and he explained that driving there and back slowly is not an offence as at no time was he stopped.

The Chairman asked the driver about the verbal complaints regarding plying for hire at Bath University campus and asked the driver if he can only take jobs if given to him by an operator to which he replied yes. The driver denied taking any “flyers”, said there was no proof and you need proof to make allegations.

The Chairman asked the driver what happened in the reported incident at Bath Spa train station in June 2018.

The driver said that the station can be busy / chaotic, especially when trains from London arrive, and that on this particular day there were 5 or 7 people in the queue outside the station.  He explained that the customer, who had made the complaint, had just jumped into his car, ignoring the queue, without permission and that he had then asked him to leave the vehicle.

He added that by the time other people had got into other taxis the complainant had ended up being his customer and said that he was angry at not being accepted as his customer in the first place.

The Chairman stated that this did not match the statement that had been made by the complainant. He then asked the driver to comment on the latest incident which had been alleged to have taken place on 17^th March 2023.

The driver said that he had picked up two passengers from the University and that at the bottom of Bathwick Hill the male passenger had asked to get out. At this point the driver said that the female passenger asked to sit in the front and that the male passenger had warned him that she was a ‘dangerous girl’.

The driver informed the Sub-Committee that the female customer actually lives two doors away from him and that this may have in some way panicked her. He said that he sometimes makes jokes with customers and that the allegations that have been made against him are not true.

He stated that his Uber account had been suspended within 2 hours of this journey and that he had asked the Police to visit the Second Complainant to take an alcohol level reading.

The Chairman asked the driver if he had seen the Second Complainant before this journey had taken place.

The driver replied no.

The Chairman asked the driver if he had said ‘…I’ve seen you go on runs’ to the Second Complainant when discussing on the journey where she lived.

The driver replied no.

The Chairman asked the driver if he had touched the Second Complainant’s leg whilst the journey was in progress.

The driver replied that this was not true and said that the passenger was very drunk.

Councillor Sally Davis asked why he hadn’t mentioned the male passenger’s comments about the Second Complainant being ‘dangerous’ to the Licensing team before today.

The driver replied that he had been given little time to reply to the allegation and therefore only gave very brief answers. He said again that he thought that the Second Complainant was very drunk.

The Public Protection Officer (Licensing) asked the driver if he could recall what sort of joke he would have told on the journey with the Second Complainant.

The driver replied that he had told the passenger while on the journey that they were neighbours and that if you see my car parked here then don’t worry I am not stalking you.

The Chairman asked the driver if he had any final comments to make to the Sub-Committee regarding his case.

The driver repeated his earlier comments regarding having a high Uber rating and driving over 200,000 customers. He added that he felt he was at the meeting because 1 student had taken his humour the wrong way.

Decision & Reasons

Members have had to consider whether or not the licensee is a fit and proper person to continue to hold his combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s licence in the light of complaints made against him by female passengers and his conduct since he was first licensed by BANES. In doing so Members took account of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, Human Rights Act 1998, case law and the Council Policy.

The Licensee came before the Licensing Sub Committee on 23^rd March 2023 when the matter was deferred with the agreement of the Licensee due to a new complaint that had been made on 17^th March 2023.

Members were aware that on 31^st March 2023 the licensee had had his Combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence suspended with immediate effect in the interests of public safety. Members, however, determined the matter on its merits having considered all relevant evidence and noted the suspension did not pre-determine the outcome of the hearing. 

Members had considered additional written information which comprised e-mails between the Licensee and the Public Protection Officer (Licensing) between 30^th March and 6^th April 2023.

Members had read the Licensee’s written representations and heard from him in oral representations when he indicated that in relation the journey on 17^th October 2022 he denied commenting on the passenger’s looks, denied suggesting that he give her his phone number or that he would lay the car seat back at the destination. He described the passenger as being angry at the start of the journey. He indicated that he had informed the passenger of the change in route to a quicker alternative, and she had agreed to this. He denied saying anything to make the passenger feel uncomfortable however, he also said in oral representations to the Members that it was 5 or 6 months ago, and he does not remember word for word the conversation.  In relation to the journey on 17^th March 2023 he denied being inappropriate with the customer, he denied stroking her leg and asking if that was “okay” and he denied calling her sexy.

He explained to Members that the female passenger had, in his view, been very drunk, and he had wanted the police to take her blood alcohol levels. The Licensee’s account was that the male passenger who had been in the vehicle for the first part of the journey had warned him to be “careful it’s a dangerous girl” in relation to his female passenger.

The Licensee was led by the Chair through each of the historic matters on his licence so that he could give his account of those occurrences in detail. In conclusion, the Licensee asked Members to take into account that he has held his licence for 15 years, he has undertaken approximately 200,000 journeys, he has the highest rating with Uber, and he asked Members to consider if it is ok to send someone to unemployment because one student did not like something.

Members had read the witness statement provided by the complainant concerning the journey on the 17^th October 2022 (the First Complainant) and they heard oral representations from her today. On questioning she indicated that the Licensee had made the following comments to her: “You can read men’s minds and you’re beautiful”, he said he should give her his number and that he said he was going to lay his seat back. She confirmed the contents of her statement dated 27^th October 2022 were true and accurate.  Members had also read a statement, contained in Annex F of the reports pack, from her friend who met her after the journey had ended.

Members noted from the agenda reports pack that there was an e-mail from Uber Operations Lead UK that indicated the driver took a different turning to reach the destination but did not consider that to be a route deviation as such.

Members found the evidence that they heard and read from the complainants for the journeys on 17^th October 2022 and 17^th March 2023, to be credible and compelling.

It cannot have been pleasant for the First Complainant to come before the Committee today, appear in the same room as the Licensee to give her oral account and re-live what had happened to her. It was evident from how she presented before Members and taking into account the statement provided by her friend, that the words the licensee had used towards her had a lasting impact. In the immediate aftermath she was “visibly upset [and]…shaken up”. Today she was in floods of tears before Members and clearly distressed.

Conversely, based on what they had heard and read from the Licensee they did not find him to be credible, he sought to minimise and deflect in the way he gave his evidence. He questioned the honesty of all of the complainants including a solicitor, Councillor, BANES Civil Enforcement Officers and two female complainants who have no relationship to each other. He mentioned things before Committee today such as the alleged comment by the male passenger concerning the 17^th March 2023 incident, which he did not mention in his telephone or written account to licensing in the days after the incident. He said he could not recall the conversation with the first complainant in October 2022 but was able to give Members a through account of the incident concerning the Civil Enforcement Officers in 2013 and the incidents concerning the solicitor and Councillor in 2018.  His communications with licensing officers showed a lack of respect and understanding of the seriousness of the incidents concerning him.

When weighed in the balance, Members believe and prefer the evidence of the two female complainants who are apparently completely unrelated and have nothing to gain from making unfounded allegations.

Members take into account how long the Licensee has been a licensed driver, the substantial number of journeys that he has completed and the Uber rating he described to them. However, based upon the two incidents alone concerning female passengers, Members are no longer satisfied that the licensee is fit and proper to continue to hold his combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence. They have also taken into account his BANES driver’s record as a whole when considering his fit and proper status and this shows that throughout the 15 years that he has been licensed there is a catalogue of incidents and misconduct, the nature of which has been more serious as time has gone one.

The cumulative impact of these incidents when assessing the Licensee’s fit and proper status have bolstered Members’ finding that he is not fit and proper to continue to hold his Combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence.

For the avoidance of any doubt, the incidents concerning the licensee that have led Members to conclude that he is no longer fit and proper are as follows:

(i)  On 17/03/23 he made inappropriate comments and engaged in inappropriate touching of the Second Complainant:

§  Commented that not being married meant that he “would not be able to receive blow jobs from girls like [her]”

§  Commented “you are sexy”

§  Placed his left hand on her right thigh, quite firmly for a few seconds and said “is this okay”, to which she said “no” and she slid across towards the passenger side door. The driver’s hand had touched the bare flesh of her thigh as she was wearing a tennis skirt.

(ii)  The Second Complainant was shocked and “worried for her safety”, she has felt vulnerable leaving her flat as the driver lives close to her, she is more security conscious at home and wary of travelling in a taxi. She sent a complaint to Uber when she got home as she was very angry about what had happened.

(iii)  The Second Complainant had a male friend travelling in the taxi with her during the first part of the journey, when he left the vehicle, he said: “be careful with the driver.”

(iv)  On 17/10/22 made inappropriate comments towards the First Complainant:

 “You can read men’s minds and you’re beautiful”

He should give her his number

Made comments about her appearance and said he was lucky to drive around pretty girls like her

That he was going to lay his seat back when they got to where she lived.

(v)  Following these comments, the First Complainant sent a message to her friend and asked her to wait outside for her as she was scared.

(vi)  The friend saw the First Complainant was visibly upset and shaken when she met her immediately following the journey. The First Complainant does not feel that she wants to take an Uber taxi again, she says she would be frightened even with other people travelling with her, because of the Licensee’s behaviour.

(vii)  On 12/04/12 the Licensee was given a warning for failing to declare a fixed penalty notice for speeding within the 7-day period required by condition on his BANES licence.

(viii)  On 13/02/13 he was given a verbal warning having repeatedly taunted BANES Civil Enforcement Officers employed to enforce parking matters.

(ix)  On 01/05/13 the Licensee was issued with a written warning by Licensing in relation to illegally plying for hire and it was noted that he had already been spoken to by his Operator in relation to these issues.

(x)  On 17/08/15 the Licensee was issued with a Simple Caution from the police for being drunk and disorderly in a public place. He was referred to the Licensing Sub Committee who took a very dim view of his behaviour and issued him with a formal warning in relation to his future conduct.

(xi)  On 19/09/18 the Licensee received a further formal written warning from licensing for refusal of a fare and aggressive conduct reported in writing by a solicitor. At the same time a complaint of aggressive driving reported in writing by a BANES Councillor was noted and he was informed it would be retained on his file.

Taking all of this into account, Members find that the Licensee is no longer fit and proper to continue to hold the combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence. Given the way in which his conduct has escalated and the seriousness of the most recent two matters which involved inappropriate comments and inappropriate touching of a passenger, his licence is revoked with immediate effect pursuant to section 61(2B) in the interests of public safety.