The officers consider that the following item or items contains exempt information as provided for in the Local Government Access to Information Act and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The Committee is recommended to agree the necessary resolutions excluding the public from the meeting during consideration of these items. At the time this agenda is published no representations have been that this part of the meeting should be open to the public.

A recommendation was made that the public be excluded during consideration of the following items of business.

Decision

To exclude the public during consideration of the following items which involved consideration of exempt information relating to the financial or business affairs of particular persons, and public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.

The report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

The Hearing Panel considered a report from the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing. The Hearing Panel also considered the written papers of the parties and the oral representations of the parties who attended as well as the relevant legislation.

MS attended with his Representative (a solicitor), and an interpreter was also in attendance. MS’s Representative acknowledged that MS spoke and understood English, however there may be certain words that MS may not understand in which case the advice of the interpreter would be sought.

The Panel heard that MS had a recent conviction for illegally Plying for Hire and the accompanying offence of ‘No Insurance’, details of which were in the accompanying report. The incident had occurred in 2020 whereby another taxi driver had notified the Local Authority that MS was working illegally at a hospital, (Manchester Royal Infirmary) hence the Local Authority’s involvement. Officers had investigated and witnessed a lady getting into the rear of MS’s vehicle, (marked as a Private Hire vehicle) and when approached and spoken to by the officers, he had apologised and asked them not to proceed any further.

The delay in bringing the review was due to the delay in the court proceedings due to the court administration.

Initially MS had entered a ‘Not Guilty’ plea relying on a defence that his son had a medical appointment at the hospital; however checks were made, and this was found to be untrue. MS then stated his son had not had an appointment but had attended Accident & Emergency; checks were again made and there was no record of him ever having been booked in or seen.

The case against MS was subsequently proved in his absence and sentenced. MS had exercised his right and appealed the matter. However this appeal related to the sentence only and not the conviction itself.

MS had a prior speeding conviction with 6 effective points on his licence and that with the penalty points imposed for the ‘No insurance’ offence had caused him to be disqualified from driving by way of ‘totting up’. He had subsequently and successfully applied for the court not to disqualify him on the grounds that it would cause ‘Exceptional Hardship’ in respect of his disabled so who had kidney and trachea issues.

MS’s Representative explained to the Panel that this was the first time MS had ever been involved in Illegally Plying for Hire. At the court hearing great weight had been given to the fact that in the event of disqualification he would lose his job and his child would be impacted as he would need to pick his child up from school to take him to hospital. MS’s Representative highlighted that driving is what MS did for a living and invited the Panel to consider his history as a driver and the versatility this offered him in caring for his disabled son.MS had also given his assurance to the Panel that he would never ever do this again.

MS’s representative outlined that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.