Agenda item

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

He informed the Sub-Committee that the licensee would not be attending the hearing and handed out copies of email correspondence from him.

The Members agreed unanimously to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the licensee.

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 a speeding offence, permitting an unlicensed driver to drive his licensed vehicle and dishonesty in his dealings with the Licensing Section. 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 determination of this matter had been deferred from the meeting on 30^th November, as the Licensing Section had received an e-mail from the licensee at 08:05am on the morning of the hearing indicating that he would not be attending due to his health.

Members decided in the interests of all concerned to defer the meeting to today so that the licensee could appear before the Sub-Committee to give his account in person. In making that decision, Members issued a warning that if he failed to attend on the next occasion, the matter could proceed in his absence. That warning was included in the papers sent to the licensee.

The licensee has failed to attend the hearing today and notified the licensing section by e-mail at 22:17 hours on 13^th December that he would not be attending. In that e-mail the licensee indicated “it is better to take the decision in his absence”.  Having issued a warning to the licensee that the matter could proceed in his absence on the next occasion, and in the light of the licensee’s invitation for Members to do so, they have determined it is in the public interest to deal with the matter today.

On 8^th August 2023 the licensee provided a written statement to the Licensing Department regarding speeding offences carried out in his licensed vehicle.

In that statement he admitted that it was his father driving the vehicle on 30^th August 2022 when it was caught speeding; that his father was not a licensed private hire driver at that time, and that he had informed the police his father was the driver. In relation to the speeding offence on 31^st December 2022 he denied committing the offence and said he was abroad at the time.

He denied receiving the letter from the police and said he had no knowledge of it. He said that he did know that the person who had been nominated as the driver could not have been, because she was at work at the time of the offence. He denied any knowledge at all of this speeding offence. He said he was unaware that only licensed private hire drivers could drive his vehicle and said that until that day, he was unaware that his father had driven his licensed vehicle to the licensing office on 27^th October 2022. The licensee denied any knowledge of who was driving the vehicle on 21^st and 29^th June when it was caught speeding by a community speed watch operation.

On 11^th August 2023 the licensee contacted the Licensing Department by e-mail to say that it was him who was driving the vehicle on 31^st December 2022. He said he was driving his vehicle to a friend’s house before being driven to the airport by that friend.

The licensee attended the licensing office on 15^th August 2023 to make a further statement. When giving that statement he admitted that he had lied again as he was driving to Gatwick airport on 31^st December 2022 and not to his friend’s house. The licensee explained in his statement that the reason he lied was because he panicked as he was unsure why his girlfriend had been nominated originally as the driver for the speeding offence on 31^st December 2022.

He explained that he had requested a new form from the police so that he can inform them of who was driving at the time of the offence. He admitted he lied when he said he did not know his father had driven one of his private hire vehicles to the licensing office on 27^th October 2022. He explained that he did know as he had to collect his father on that day. He apologised for not telling the truth on 8^th August when he made his first statement and on 11^th August when he sent an e-mail to the licensing section.

Members noted that the licensee had held his licence with BANES for just over 4 years and found that there had been no complaints against him from members of the public. 

On balance, however, Members find that the applicant is no longer fit and proper to continue to hold the combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence for the following reasons:

(1)  He committed a speeding offence on 31^st December 2022 when he was caught travelling at 61mph in a 50mph speed limit.

(2)  He had permitted his father to drive his licensed private hire vehicle on at least the 30^th of August 2022 when his father was caught speeding, and on the 27^th of October 2022 when his father drove the vehicle to a knowledge test at the licensing office. It is a criminal offence to drive a private hire vehicle without a private hire licence.

(3)  He had lied to the Licensing Section on 8^th and 11^th August 2023. This factor weighs heavily in the balance, as part of being fit and proper is being honest and reliable, and the licensee has shown through his conduct that he is not trustworthy.

Whilst the speeding and permitting his father to drive a licensed vehicle when he was not a licensed driver would not on their own have led to a revocation, the failure to be honest and open with the licensing office means that Members no longer regard the licensee as a fit and proper person.

Authority is delegated to the licensing section to issue a revocation on notice under section 61(2A) Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.