Agenda item

The Lead 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 apologised for an error in the report at section 3.3 and said that the date referred to should be 18^th March 2024, not 2023.

The Team Leader, Legal Services explained that the Sub-Committee had received the witness statements that had been provided by the licensee’s solicitor.

The licensee’s solicitor addressed the Sub-Committee and said that he questioned the Council’s decision to suspend the licensee following the most recent alleged incident. He said that this was tricky to respond to as no further correspondence had been received from the complainant.

He said that the licensee has no convictions against him and that two of the incidents that the Council had been made aware of, as part of an information sharing agreement with the Police, predate the licensee’s initial application.

The licensee’s solicitor asked the licensee to give his account of the alleged Uber incident on 9^th March 2024.

The licensee said that he was first made aware of the incident when contacted by the Licensing department on 9^th April 2024. He said that he didn’t know anything about it and that it must be false. He explained that having initially checked his list of jobs for 9^th March 2024 he had realised that it would have been recorded as a journey that would have been carried out on 8^th March 2024 due to the system used by Uber.

The licensee said that he had not intended to deceive anyone by his initial denial. He added that he has a 4.99 out of 5 rating on Uber and has carried out 1,000s of journeys.

The licensee’s solicitor asked the licensee about his work ethic.

The licensee said that he always waits for his passengers to engage in conversation with him first.

The licensee’s solicitor asked the licensee to give his account of the alleged Veezu incident in 2023 when he had been accused of putting his hand down the trousers of a male passenger.

The licensee replied that this allegation was not true and that he was only made aware of it when the Police visited his home around two weeks after the date of the journey in question. He stated that he showed the Police the dashcam footage from his vehicle and that no further action was taken.

He stated that the booking for this journey had been made by a female on behalf of a male passenger who wanted to travel to Bristol from Bath. He explained that it was booked as ‘cash job’, but that on commencement of the journey the male passenger said that he did not have any money on him.

The licensee said that they agreed to drive to a cashpoint at the Tesco Express on Windsor Bridge, but the male passenger was unable to obtain any money. He said that at this point the male passenger asked to be taken back to Bath city centre, at which point he refused. He stated that the male did not seem angry at this point and left of his own will.

The licensee’s solicitor asked the licensee to give his account of the alleged workplace complaint from 2020.

The licensee explained that following a complaint made by a colleague he had been suspended for one and a half months whilst an internal investigation took place. He stated that no further action was taken against him and that he was asked to return to his role.

The licensee’s solicitor asked the licensee to give his account of the alleged incident in 2014.

The licensee said that he had met a female on a number of occasions and became friends. He added that this became more of a relationship and that they had engaged in consensual sex. He explained that he had been arrested following an allegation from her, but that no further action was taken by the Police as the allegation was withdrawn.

The licensee’s solicitor asked the licensee if he felt he remained ‘fit and proper’ to carry out his role as a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver.

The licensee replied that he believed that he was and that he likes to help people as much as possible.

The Chair asked if he had any further comments on the allegations that had been made against him.

The licensee stated that the workplace concerned at the time was quite a toxic environment to work in and that if staff took extra breaks, especially when busy, it was part of his role to ask them to return to their duties. He surmised that the colleague who made the allegation must not have liked this and decided to try to get rid of him.

The licensee’s solicitor made a summing up statement. He said that none of the incidents that have been alleged against the licensee have been pursued following any initial investigations and that no further action has been taken by the Police or any other body. He said that he maintained his view that the decision to suspend the licensee was incorrect and that he should have his licence reinstated.

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 information received from the Police under an Information Sharing Agreement. 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 two witness statements from the licensee’s colleagues at the time of the 2020 incident which was a workplace allegation. They had regard also to a statement made by the licensee for the purposes of his first licence application which was referred to licensing sub-committee.

Members heard from the licensee in oral representations who was taken through each allegation by his solicitor. In summary the licensee provided as follows:

(1)  In relation to the 2024 complaint, he did make the journey, but he denied that there was any truth to the allegation.

(2)  In relation to the 2023 allegation, he provided Members with a detailed account of what happened which was that the job had been booked by a female, however it was her male companion that was going to take the journey. It was a cash job, so he took the male to the cashpoint as a gesture of good will. The male was unable to obtain any cash and the licensee was not willing to complete the journey without payment upfront. There had been no conduct such as that described by the complainant who had sat in the rear passenger side of the vehicle. He explained to Members that the police had attended his property two weeks later to investigate the allegation. They had asked to see his dashcam footage which faced into his vehicle, and he had willingly shared this with them. They viewed the footage, seemed happy with it and left his property.

(3)  In relation to the 2020 workplace complaint the licensee denied the allegations and said they had been the subject of an internal HR investigation which had found there was no wrongdoing and allowed him to resume his role as Store Manager. Members had regard to the two witness statements of his colleagues at the time.

(4)  In relation to the 2014 allegation, the licensee indicated that he had been struggling emotionally at this time and had entered into a relationship with a female friend which had become sexual and consensual. He had subsequently been arrested as a result of the allegation she had made. He offered to provide DNA and undertake a lie detector test however he was released without charge.

The Licensee explained to members that he undertakes his role to a high standard, greets his customers with kindness, gets out of his vehicle to help customers with their luggage. He said he likes to help his community and loves Bath. He would like to continue working here for the rest of his life.

The Licensee’s solicitor addressed Members in closing submissions.

Members carefully considered the information that they had heard and read and weighed it in the balance, disregarding any irrelevant information.

Members fully understood the officer decision to immediately suspend the licensee’s licence in the interests of public safety, which had been taken in good faith on the evidence before them at that time.

They considered the issue of whether or not the licensee is fit and proper to hold a combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s licence with an open mind based on the evidence before them today and conclude that the evidence weighs in favour of a finding that the licensee is a fit and proper person to hold a combined hackney carriage/private hire driver’s licence.