Agenda item

Decision & Reasons

The Licensee was not in attendance at the hearing today. The Licensee had been notified of the Licensing Sub-Committee hearing by email on 30 December 2025 and they were required to attend the hearing at 10am on 12 February 2026 at the Guildhall in Bath. The Licensing Officer’s report and appendices were sent to the Licensee on 20 January 2026. This includes a warning that if they fail to attend the hearing, the matter might proceed in their absence. The Licensee did not send an acknowledgement or provide any updates to the Licensing Team following this correspondence.

On 12 February 2026, it was noted that the Licensee had not arrived at the Guildhall by 10am. The Licensing Officer made enquiries with the Licensee. The Licensing Officer emailed the Licensee at 10.18am and phoned and left a voicemail with the Licensee at 10.31am, on the email and mobile telephone number held for them on file.  The Licensing Officer noted that there was a non-UK type ringtone when calling the Licensee, so there was a possibility that they were abroad. By 11am a response had not been received, and the Licensee was not in attendance.

Members had to determine whether the matter should proceed in the Licensee’s absence today. In doing so, they had regard to the licensing procedure within the agenda report pack which says as follows:

“In circumstances where a party fails to attend the Committee will consider whether to proceed in absence or defer to the next meeting. Should a matter be deferred the deferral notice will state that the matter may proceed in a party’s absence on the next occasion. In deciding whether to proceed all notices, communications and representations will be considered.”

Members had regard to the correspondence with the Licensee in relation to their attendance at the hearing. The Licensee had been given adequate notice of the Licensing Sub-Committee hearing. They had not informed the Licensing Section that they could not attend the hearing. They had also been warned that the hearing may proceed in their absence. Members determined that it was in the public interest to proceed in their absence.

Members considered 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 light of complaints received from members of the public and breaching a condition in their licence.

In doing so Members took account of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, Human Rights Act 1998, case law and the Council’s Policy.

It is a legal requirement that drivers and operators must be ‘fit and proper’ for a licence to be granted under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. The Fit and Proper Person test is a statutory test, but there is no statutory definition. However, the Panel needs to be mindful of the Council’s Policy and the Statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards which provides the Fit and Proper person test as: “Licensing authorities have a duty to ensure that any person to whom they grant a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence is a fit and proper person to be a licensee. It may be helpful when considering whether an applicant or licensee is fit and proper to pose oneself the following question: Without prejudice, and based on the information before you, would you allow a person for whom you care, regardless of their condition, to travel alone in a vehicle driven by this person at any time of day or night?”

Members have asked themselves if they would allow their friends, loved ones and indeed all members of the community to travel alone in a vehicle driven by this person, which is considered to be substantively the same as the suggestion in the Standards Guidance. Members of the Licensing Sub-Committee are aware that decisions on the suitability of an applicant or licensee are made on the balance of probabilities.

Members had regard to the Licensee’s written explanations given by them in the agenda report pack. They considered the report pack as a whole and all annexes to that report.

Members noted the Licensee has written to confirm they would be resigning from their role as a taxi driver. They have been referred to a Licensing Sub-Committee hearing as they currently hold a Combined Hackey Carriage/Private Hire Vehicle driver’s licence and the matter therefore requires determination.

Members have had regard to complaints from passengers about inappropriate comments made by the licensee to them. The first complaint related to two journeys taken by a customer in March and August 2025. The licensee submitted a statement and witness statement to the Licensing Team regarding these complaints. The second complaint related to one journey taken by a customer in May 2025 and the licensee referred to this complaint in their witness statement. A third complaint was submitted regarding the licensee’s parking in April 2025.

Members noted that the customers had been made to feel uncomfortable when in the back of the car. One female customer complained that comments had been made about women’s careers, domestic abuse, enquiries about their relationship status and appearance. The licensee had also made inappropriate comments about their deceased wife’s appearance. The customer found their behaviour to be unpredictable and they were nervous.

Another female customer complained about the nature of the comments made by the Licensee, where they had asked about the behaviour between the customer and her friends.

Members also had regard to the witness statement submitted by the customer who travelled with the licensee on two trips. Members noted the customer had wanted to attend the hearing today but had not been able to due to work commitments.

Members weighed up the Licensee’s submissions and the complaints against them and found that on the balance of probabilities, the Licensee behaved inappropriately towards the customers.

Members were concerned that the Private Hire Operator had not informed the Licensing Team of the 19 March 2025 complaint and requested that the Licensing Officer make further enquiries into a notification not being made.

Members noted that the Licensee was previously referred to a Licensing Sub Committee hearing on 9 January 2025, regarding late provision of valid insurance certificates and late notification of a road traffic accident in September 2024. A final warning was issued to the licensee.

Members note that the Licensee admitted to breaching the condition of late notification of the accident, at the previous hearing. 

On the evidence before them, they are no longer satisfied that the Licensee is a fit and proper person to continue to hold the combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence. Those reasons are as follows:

1.  Serious allegations were made by two customers regarding inappropriate behaviour towards them;

2.  One of the customers felt uncomfortable, unsafe and concerned about the Licensee’s unpredictable behaviour;

3.  Taking these complaints cumulatively, Members are not confident the Licensee can act with professionalism as an ambassador for BANES;

4.  They have failed to comply with their licence conditions at all times;

5.  Members consider that they do not take seriously the requirement to comply with the licence conditions;

6.  Members consider that they have not learnt their lesson from a previous warning.

For these reasons Members consider on balance that the Licensee is not a fit and proper person to continue to hold their licence and revoke their combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence.