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.

Following his summary of the report the Public Protection Officer (Licensing) showed the Sub-Committee a video, around 30 seconds in length, of the conclusion of the latest alleged incident which had been filmed by the complainant whilst driving.

The licensee addressed the Sub-Committee and began by thanking the Public Protection Officer (Licensing) for his part in this process. The licensee explained that he had brought with him a number of written submissions, that comprised of a personal statement, accompanied by 18 annexes, which included some character references.

The Sub-Committee asked the licensee and his representative to retire whilst these were considered for a short period of time.

On resumption of the meeting the licensee’s representative addressed the Sub-Committee. He stated that the licensee was a dedicated and exemplary driver who was responsible, meticulous and punctual.

He added that the licensee’s role involves driving school runs, that he has a friendly demeanour, is dedicated to his work and provides an invaluable service to the local community.

The Lead Officer (Licensing) queried part of the personal statement submitted by the licensee. He said that he did not agree that he had said words to the effect of ‘having a taxi sign on your roof makes you a target’. He believed that whilst advising the licensee about his behaviour following a previous incident that he had said that whilst having this role as a taxi driver their vehicles are more noticeable and could therefore be more open to complaints.

The licensee acknowledged this and agreed that they had had previous conversations about his behaviour.

Councillor Toby Simon referred to the video clip that they had been shown and asked the licensee if he had been using the taxi / bus lane to make his progress through that area of city (Churchill Bridge Roundabout).

The licensee replied that this was correct and that the video was taken after the complainant had cut him up on the Wellsway. He added that he was signing to the complainant that she should not be using her phone whilst driving.

He stated that in no way was he trying to antagonise the situation and that his wife was with him in his vehicle at the time. He said that the complainant had brake checked him during the journey down the Wellsway into the city centre and that when he left the Churchill Bridge Roundabout he pulled into the nearby petrol station.

The Lead Officer (Licensing) asked, after the initial incident on the Bear Flat, why he didn’t take the decision to not engage any further with the complainant.

The licensee replied that he had not been driving aggressively and that he had probably flashed his lights at the complainant because he was shocked by the manner in which she was behaving. He said that he felt that the incident was over, but the complainant had decided to carry it on.

The Chair asked the licensee if he could address the Sub-Committee on the other issues raised within the report from the Public Protection Officer (Licensing).

The licensee replied that having provided previous statements that were contained within the agenda pack of the Sub-Committee that he did not have much more to add to these. He said that he has immense pride in the work that he does and that the references that he has submitted have made him realise the importance of his role to the community.

He stated that he regrets being in this position and would endeavour not to be here again.

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 complaint made against him as well as his licensing record. In doing so Members took account of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, Human Rights Act 1998, case law and the Council Policy.

Members had considered additional information in the form of:

·  a witness account from the licensee’s wife who was present in his vehicle at the time of the latest alleged incident;

·  a witness statement from an independent third party who said he had witnessed the latest incident; and

·  video footage provided by the most recent complainant.

At the point when it was the licensee’s opportunity to address Members, he indicated that he had some written representations with 18 annexes, for Members’ consideration.  As such, Members asked the licensee and his representative to retire whilst these were considered.

Having reconvened, Members heard from the licensee in oral representations. He indicated that in relation to the 2024 allegation he did not antagonise the complainant at all and that her behaviour was shocking and left his wife visibly shaking and disturbed. The licensee explained to Members that he had learned his lesson. In relation to the written material he had presented to Members, he indicated that he wanted to convey what kind of person he is and his character.

He explained to Members that his explanations in relation to each of the incidents contained in the report pack stand as his account in relation to those incidents.

Members also heard from another driver and operator who had attended to support the licensee. He read aloud a character reference for the licensee which described him as a dedicated and exemplary driver who is meticulous in his approach to ensuring the safety and well-being of the children he transports. The reference spoke about overwhelmingly positive feedback that he had received from parents and colleagues as well as his friendly demeanour, patience and ability to handle any situation with calm and competence.

Members noted that the licensee had been a driver with BANES for nearly 26 years. During this time, there had been a catalogue of complaints against him and an incident of non-compliance with a condition of his licence. These matters occurred relatively frequently in 2010, 2013, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2023 and 2024.

The licensee has six allegations against him for being verbally abusive, driving aggressively and/or using rude gesticulations. The complainants included a BANES councillor, a BANES Civil Enforcement Officer, another vehicle user and another licensed driver.

Members had regard to the licensee and his witnesses accounts in relation to these allegations, but Members find on balance that there is a clear pattern of behaviour where he shows aggression and uses offensive hand gestures when he finds himself in challenging situations. As a licensed BANES driver, he is expected to be an ambassador for BANES and an example of professionalism, good manners and careful driving.

Given the weight of evidence from many unrelated, independent sources, Members find on balance that he is not currently fit and proper to hold a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence. That said, they weigh this against the material submitted by the licensee that commends his behaviour, such as the character references from 2010 and 2024, the Councillor letter from 2016 regarding his excellent customer service, and his clean driving licence.

They also take into account the remorse that the licensee has shown today. Accordingly, they think that after appropriate learning and reflection, the licensee will be a fit and proper person to hold a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s licence again.

Members therefore take the following action:

The Licensee’s licence will be suspended for a period of one month during which time he shall complete an online anger management course accredited at QLS level 2 involving not less than 20 hours learning, agreed in advance by the licencing team and shall provide a certificate of completion. In the event that he cannot complete the course within the one- month period, his licence shall be suspended until he provides the certificate of completion.

If Members find the licensee before them in similar circumstances again, he is at risk of revocation of his licence.