Agenda item

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

The licensee acknowledged the issue of vaping within their vehicle in 2019 and stated that at the time the terms and conditions of being a driver did not mention vaping specifically. The licensee added that once this point had been clarified with a member of the Licensing team they stopped and had not done so since.

The licensee addressed the complaint made in 2021 regarding a fare refusal and said that at the time they were working for Veezu and were allowed to cancel a job if their customer did not arrive within five minutes of the agreed pick-up time.

The licensee added that when they returned to the same area one hour later the same customer approached them and asked to be taken home. The licensee explained that he could not accept their request as they were not a booked job on his screen. He said that the people in question were also heavily drunk.

The licensee said that another accusation regarding that night was that they had accepted a better paying fare. The licensee explained that drivers for Veezu in 2021 would not know what their next job was.

The licensee referred to the complaint made in 2022 and said that they believed that they were acting in the best interests of the family concerned by parking as close to their home as possible to enable their disabled child to have only a short distance to travel from his vehicle to their home.

Referring to the three speeding offences the licensee said that there had been no excuse for these events. They said that at times they may have been under some personal stress, but this did not justify their actions and said that they would be more mindful now.

The licensee explained that following their court appearance in 2024 they had been allowed to keep their driving licence due to mitigating circumstances.

The licensee stated that they acknowledge the seriousness of all these events combined and would learn from this experience.

Councillor Toby Simon asked a question in relation to the complaint from 2022. He asked the licensee what their role was in notifying the taxi operator that resulted in their email to the Licensing team.

The licensee replied that they carry out a school run on behalf of Zippee and that following the incident they had informed the operator of what had happened. The licensee added that the operator had said that they knew the complainant.

The licensee admitted that they were wearing shorts that day, but had forgotten their badge. They insisted that they had not sworn during the incident.

Councillor Simon asked if he had committed any other driving offences.

The licensee replied that no further offences had been committed within the past year.

The licensee stated that over the past seven years only a few complaints had been made against them and that no complaints had been made in respect of their main role which was as a school run driver and airport transfers.

The licensee said that they wanted to do the best that they can in the future.

Decision & Reasons

Members have had to consider whether or not the Licensee is a fit and proper person to continue to hold their combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s licence in the light of complaints made against them and motoring convictions. 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 heard from the Licensee in oral representations which was based upon a written statement they had prepared for Committee, and they had read the written explanations given by them in the agenda report pack. 

Members noted that the Licensee had received 3 minor motoring convictions on their DVLA licence in less than one year and that they had been convicted for these offences within a period of two years. This was contrary to BANES’ policy which expects that licensees will not have been convicted of three or more minor motoring offences during the previous three years.

Members considered the three complaints against the Licensee, since he was first licensed. Members noted that they had heeded the advice regarding vaping from their vehicle. In relation to the alleged refusal of a fare, they noted the explanation provided by the Licensee that they were able to cancel the booking through the Veezu app if the customer was 5 minutes late and that at a later stage one of the passengers was too drunk, in their view, for them to take in their licensed vehicle. In relation to the complaint regarding aggressive conduct, Members preferred the Licensee’s account that they were not the aggressor, which was supported by their operator and the BANES staff member who was the child’s escort.

Members were satisfied based on what they had heard and read from the Licensee, that they had learned from their past mistakes and had taken on board advice given by the Licensing Section to ensure that their mistakes are not repeated. In closing submissions to Members, they acknowledged the seriousness of the incidents and said that they deeply regretted any concerns that they may have caused. They indicated that they are committed to adhering to all regulations and maintaining the highest standards expected of a licensed driver.

Members noted that the Licensee’s DVLA driving licence is endorsed with 12 penalty points and that is a significant deterrent to the Licensee in relation to their future conduct.

Therefore, on balance, Members find that the Licensee is a fit and proper person to continue to hold the combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence however, they issue a final warning to them that they must: 

1. Ensure that they adhere to the rules of the road;
2. Ensure that they comply with all the BANES conditions and policies related to their licences, including those regarding appropriate modes of dress when acting as a licensed driver.

If they appear before the Licensing Sub Committee again, against this background, they are at risk of revocation.

Members observed that if a significant complaint is upheld against the Licensee or they receive any further convictions, cautions or fixed penalties, the Licensee should be referred to Licensing Sub Committee to consider their fit and proper status.