Agenda item

The Sub-Committee considered the report which sought determination of an application by Mr ADN for the grant of a combined hackney carriage/private hire driver's licence.

The applicant was not present.  He had requested that the application be heard in his absence.  Members had to consider whether or not to proceed in Mr ADN’s absence.  The Licensing Officer stated that Mr ADN had not been able to attend the Sub-Committee on two previous occasions.  Members took account of the lengthy email exchange in which the applicant consented to it proceeding in absence and his acknowledgment that it might. Having confirmed that all the information forwarded by Mr ADN was available to them, Members concluded that the matter should therefore proceed in his absence. 

The Licensing Officer presented the report, outlined the application and the details of the caution.  He circulated the email exchange with the applicant and a letter from the National Illegal Money Lending Team.  Members took some time to consider the documents. 

The Licensing Officer then called witnesses.  The witnesses put their case and were questioned.

Following an adjournment it was

RESOLVED that a hackney carriage/private hire driver's licence not be granted to Mr ADN.

Reasons for decision

Members had to consider Mr ADN’s application for a licence to drive hackney carriage and private hire vehicles.  In doing so they had to consider a Police caution obtained for the offence of lending money without a licence and a final warning letter sent to him by the licensing authority.  Members therefore had to consider whether Mr ADN was a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

Members had to consider whether or not to proceed in Mr ADN’s absence. Members took account of the lengthy email exchange in which he consented to it proceeding in absence and his acknowledgment that it might.  Members having confirmed that all the information forwarded by Mr ADN was available to them concluded that the matter should therefore proceeded in his absence. 

Members took account of Mr ADN’s written statement, the information provided by the National Illegal Money Lending Team and the final warning letter. Members also heard from the witnesses who gave an account of their experiences of Mr ADN’s illegal money lending activity.

Members found that Mr ADN was arrested under suspicion of engaging in activities that require a licence when not a licensee pursuant to s39(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and accepted a caution. In the paperwork Mr ADN stated the offence resulted from a misunderstanding of the law and said his accountant told him it should be alright.  Mr ADN also apologised for what he says was a mistake saying nothing was done with criminal intent.  Mr ADN also stated that since his arrest he had become a victim because drivers stopped paying, cars got damaged and one was fraudulently transferred into another’s name.  Mr ADN stated as a result his business had gone downhill and being able to work would help provide his family and young child with a minimum of financial support.  None of Mr ADN’s witnesses attended.

Members found that Mr ADN had been a licensee since November 2007 and whilst not attracting complaint from the public the Licensing Team had been contacted by Police in relation to his vehicles on many occasions.  For example, Mr ADN had accrued 15 penalty points on his DVLA driving license 12 for failing to provide the identity of a driver and on three occasions his vehicles had been operated without a MOT certificate thereby rendering any insurance cover void.  There had also been a number of incidents where drivers of his vehicles had collided with other road users and no insurance details were provided.  Members found in all the circumstances that Mr ADN had failed to live up to his responsibilities as a licensee and had put the public at risk in so doing. 

With regard to the caution and cash forfeiture Members took account of the representation from the National Illegal Money Lending Team and the witnesses, Members noted that the evidence leading to the caution arose from a complaint which led to searches of 2 addresses revealing a vast amount of documentary evidence pointing towards large scale illegal money lending and a large sum of cash hidden on one premises, namely £9,980 which was subsequently forfeited.  Whilst the National Illegal Money Lending Team concluded Mr ADN was lending to fellow drivers and extorting money from them, Members noted that the caution was given because Mr ADN was a man of previous good character.

In determining the matter Members had regard to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, the Council's Policy, the Human Rights Act 1998 and case law.  Members noted that case law stated hearsay evidence is admissible, the merits of a caution/conviction must not be reviewed or re-opened, the economic wellbeing of the applicant is irrelevant and in considering any action the protection of the public is of the utmost importance.  Accordingly the weight attached to the evidence was a matter for Members to decide and with regard to accepting a caution Members noted Mr ADN must have first admitted an offence and agreed to be cautioned.  Members also noted that whilst it is not a criminal conviction a caution can be used as evidence of a person’s bad character.

Members took the matters and issues of this morning very seriously, some of which they hoped never to come across again. In particular an extremely dim view was been taken of his illegal money lending operation which had connotations of a loan shark and organised criminal activity calling into disrepute the good name of the taxi trade in Bath and North East Somerset.  Whilst having taken account of Mr ADN’s representations Members concluded that committing an offence out of extreme foolishness rather than a deliberate act was no basis to find he was a person is fit and proper and given the sums involved and wide spread nature of his operation concluded it could not be described as arising out of any foolishness or mistake.  Accordingly, and given the nature and seriousness of all the matters before them, Members found he was not a fit and proper person to hold a license and they have heard nothing to persuade them that a member of their family or a loved one would be safe in a taxi owned or driven by Mr ADN therefore the application was refused.