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 Sub-committee considered a report from the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the above application. In addition to the written information that was circulated to all parties, oral representations at the hearing were also considered, as well as the relevant guidance. The hearing was conducted in line with the established procedure for taxi licensing hearings.

The Applicant attended the hearing along with a representative of the Hackney Drivers & Private Hire Association Ltd. The Licensing Officer outlined that the Applicant was before the Sub-committee to consider his application for a new Private Hire Drivers Licence (PHDL). The Applicant had previously held a PHDL with Manchester’s Licensing Authority which was revoked in February 2023 due to the receipt of complaints for engaging in inappropriate conversations with female passengers. The documents in relation to those complaints were available to the Sub-committee as background information. The representative outlined that since working with the Applicant, the consequences of his behaviour had been explained to him, including why that type of conduct was inappropriate for licenced driver. The Sub-committee heard that the Applicant was working part time at a branch of Kentucky Fried Chicken in Oldham and it was submitted by the Representative that his interaction with the public in this role demonstrated that he could be trusted with the travelling public and had shown that he has changed his behaviour. The Applicant addressed the Sub-committee directly and said that he was very sorry for the incidents that had led to his licence being revoked and that since losing his job he has struggled financially to provide for his family. He further said that he never meant any ill intentions with his actions in the conversations in question and that he sometimes struggles with understanding and speaking English.

The Sub-committee reminded itself that each application should be considered on its own merits and paid regard to the Council’s Statement of Policy and Guidelines and its duty to ensure as far as possible that drivers are Fit and Proper persons that do not pose a threat to the public. The Sub-committee considered the ‘Fit and Proper’ test in McCool v Rushcliffe Borough Council 1998, namely:

‘The objectives of the licensing regime were to ensure so far as possible that those licensed to drive vehicles are suitable persons to do so, namely that they are safe drivers with good driving records and adequate experience, sober, mentally and physically fit, honest and not persons who would take advantage of their employment to abuse or assault passengers’.

The Sub-committee also considered the additional ‘Fit and Proper’ test laid down in the Statutory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards namely:

 ‘Without any 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?’

The Sub-committee decided that based on all of the evidence, it answers the question in the negative; the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101.

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

The Sub-committee considered a report from the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the above application. In addition to the written information that was circulated to all parties, oral representations at the hearing were also considered, as well as the relevant guidance. The hearing was conducted in line with the established procedure for taxi licensing hearings.

The Applicant attended the hearing unpresented, The Sub-committee considered the report provided; the representations made by the Licence Holder and the Licensing Unit. The Sub-committee also took into consideration their Statement of Policy and Guidelines. The Sub-committee heard that the Licence Holder was appearing before the Sub-committee for a review of his PHDL in relation to a complaint received as to his conduct. The facts of the complaint were that on 6th February 2024, the Licence Holder picked up the complainant at the airport and took her to and address in Whalley Range. Some hours after the journey when the Licence Holder was back at the airport, the complainant realised she had left her rucksack in the taxi and reported it to Manchester City Council. Independent of the this, the Licence Holder had found the bag and had contacted the complainant to arrange for the bag to be dropped off at her home. In the interim, the Licence Holder had accepted a job to Bradford and while on the return leg, was contacted by the complainant to enquire when she could expect the Licence Holder to arrive.  He informed her would drop it off that evening. At around 7.30pm, the Licence Holder arrived at the complainant’s home address with the rucksack. The complainant opened the door and offered the Licence Holder £20 for the inconvenience of bringing the bag back as well as a sponge cake she had made for him out of gratitude. The complaint said that the Licence Holder commented that the £20 was not enough to cover his fare from the airport. The complainant described feeling pressured and obligated to offer more money but only had a 20 euro note which the Licence Holder took when offered. The Sub-committee also heard and noted that the Licence Holder only lives approximately 0.5 miles from the complainant’s address. The Sub-committee heard from the Licence Holder at the hearing who stated that he offered to drop the bag off at the town hall but stated the complainant wanted it back that day and that she explicitly offered the Licence Holder the cost of the fare from the airport. When questioned why he could not have dropped the bag off on his way home from Bradford given the proximity to his home address, the Licence Holder said it had been his intention to go directly to Rochdale to meet some friends. When it was put to the Licence Holder that he was only entitled to a maximum of £5 for the return of an item per the bylaws an item he again stated that the complainant agreed to pay the fare from the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102.

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

The Principal Licensing Officer informed the Sub-committee that since the time of the circulation of the papers, the Applicant had withdrawn his application.

Decision

To note that the application had been withdrawn.

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

The Sub-committee considered the report from the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the above application. In addition to the written information that was circulated to all parties, oral representations at the hearing were also considered, in conjunction with the relevant guidance. The matter was considered in line with the established procedure for taxi licensing hearings.

The Applicant attended the hearing and was represented by a Trade Union representative. The Sub-committee heard from the Licensing Officer who explained that Licence Holder was before the Sub-committee in relation to a number of complaints that had been received in relation to his conduct. The principal complaint that the Sub-committee heard submissions about was in relation to an alleged over-charging event for a trip from Terminal 2 of Manchester Airport to an address in Sale. The Sub-committee heard that at the time of the journey, there was a road closure on the motorway’s northbound carriage which the Licence Holder denied having knowledge of when he entered the motorway. The effect of this was that he then had to go southbound having entered the motorway and take a considerably longer route to the address. The passenger questioned the choice of route and why the driver had not taken a route through Wythenshawe. Upon arrival at the address, the fare was considerably more that the passenger had expected given the longer route taken. The Licence Holder did not make any adjustment to the fare. In response the Sub-committee heard on the Applicant’s behalf that the Licence Holder was not aware of the closure of the motorway and having already entered the motorway, was then committed to the diversion in place. The Licence Holder also stated that he asked the passenger if he should get off at J6 which was congested or should carry on to Junction 7.  According to the Licence Holder, the passenger requested that the Licence Holder should continue to Junction 7. The Sub-committee further heard that when contacted by the Licensing Unit, he brought a £25 money order into the Town Hall by way of fare adjustment which the passenger asked to be donated to charity. It was expressed on the Licence Holder’s behalf that he was perplexed as to why he was before the Sub-committee given; he had made a voluntary fare adjustment as he considered that to be the end of the matter.

The Sub-committee reminded itself that each application should be considered on its own merits and paid regard to the Local Authority’s Statement of Policy and Guidelines and its duty to ensure, so as far as possible, that drivers are Fit and Proper persons that do not pose a threat to the public. The Sub-committee, on the balance of probabilities, accepted the account of the incident given by the passenger and found that the Licence Holder did over charge for the journey. The Sub-committee noted that the distance to the destination was 7 miles, yet the route taken was 13.5 miles, the fare charged by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

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

The Sub-committee considered a report from the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the above application. In addition to the written information that was circulated to all parties, oral representations at the hearing were also considered, as well as the relevant guidance. The hearing was conducted in line with the established procedure for taxi licensing hearings.

The Applicant attended at the hearing along with a representative of Binas Solicitors. The Sub-committee also took into consideration their Statement of Policy and Guidelines The Sub-committee heard that the Applicant had previously had his private Hire Driver’s Licence (PHDL) revoked in August 2022 following a complaint from the mother of a 17yr old female passenger regarding an allegation of sexual assault/sexual harassment. The Sub-committee had the benefit of having sight of the documents in respect of that complaint including an audio recording and transcript of the conversation that the Applicant had had with the complainant’s daughter. The Sub-committee, heard from the Applicant’s representative who outlined that the events of 04/07/22 were not in dispute and that the Applicant fully admitted his conduct on that day; it was an error of judgement. The Representative went on to say that the Applicant was incredibly remorseful for his actions that day and that the effect on himself and his family had been profound given he has not been able to work as a driver. The Sub-committee heard that he was receiving benefits and working part time at a takeaway in Hyde. The Representative submitted to the Sub-committee that the Applicants actions were not only affecting himself but also his wife and two children, he also asked the Sub-committee to give the Applicant another chance and that the Sub-committee could be assured that the Applicant would never repeat his actions again. The Applicant was questioned as to why he thought it was ever acceptable to have a conversation of such a sexually coercive nature with a passenger as a licensed driver and why he continued to engage in that conversation when he was repeatedly reminded of the passengers age. The Applicant stated that he was not ‘in a good head space’ at the time and expressed remorse for his behaviour. He told the Sub-committee that he had thought about what happened every day and that his life has never been the same since. The Applicant was asked if, to the best of his knowledge, he was still under police investigation for the charges. The Applicant informed the Sub-committee that the police had informed him there would be no further action taken against him. The Applicant was asked if he had applied for a PHDL in any other authority since having his revoked by MCC. The Applicant informed the Sub-committee that he had applied to Oldham Council in 2023 but was refused.

The Sub-committee reminded itself that each application should be considered on its own merits and paid regard to the local authorities Statement of Policy and Guidelines and its duty to ensure so as far  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.

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

The Sub-committee considered a report from the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the above application. In addition to the written information that was circulated to all parties, oral representations at the hearing were also considered, as well as the relevant guidance. The hearing was conducted in line with the established procedure for taxi licensing hearings.

The Applicant did not attend the hearing. Given that this was now the third time the matter had been before the Sub-committee, the Sub-committee decided that the Applicant had been afforded every opportunity to attend and that it was appropriate to proceed in their absence. The Sub-committee heard from the Licensing Officer that in the course of his application for a new private hire driving licence, the Applicant had failed to disclose a criminal conviction for travelling on a railway without paying a fare on 10th November 2023 for which he received a financial penalty.

In having regard to the Licencing Policy, the Sub-committee resolved that this appeared to be a one-off incident. The Sub-committee noted that the Applicant did not have any driving convictions and no other criminal convictions. In the circumstances, the Sub-committee decided to treat this as an isolated incident and resolved to grant the application but with a warning regarding future conduct

Decision

To grant the application with a warning regarding future conduct.

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

The Sub-committee considered a report from the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the above application. In addition to the written information that was circulated to all parties, oral representations at the hearing were also considered, as well as the relevant guidance. The hearing was conducted in line with the established procedure for taxi licensing hearings.

The Applicant attended at the hearing unpresented. The Sub-committee heard from the Licencing Officer that the Applicant was before the Sub-committee to review his Private Hire Driver’s Licence (PHDL) having received a conviction for failing to provide information regarding the identity of the driver in a speeding offence.  This had resulted in 6 penalty points being enforced onto his licence. The Applicant stated categorically that he did not receive the notice from the Police and the first he knew of the matter was when he received a Court Summons through the door. The Applicant admitted frankly that he had been speeding at the time in question and that had he received the notice he would have filled it out without hesitation. He went on to say that he attended Court to argue that he never received the notice, but this was not successful.

The Sub-committee noted the Statutory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards, in particular the Annex – Assessment of Previous Convictions (Motoring Convictions):

“it is accepted that offences can be committed unintentionally, and a single occurrence of a minor traffic offence would not prohibit the granting of a licence” and;

 “a single occurrence of a minor road traffic offence may not necessitate revocation of a taxi or private hire licence providing the driver remains a fit and proper person”.

Although the above referred to minor road traffic offences, the Sub-committee noted that the Applicant did not have any criminal convictions and had had no further traffic convictions inside of the guidelines. The Sub-committee, in having regard to all the information, decided to treat this offence as an isolated incident and agreed to depart from the guidelines and issued the Applicant with a warning as to future conduct.

Decision

To issue a warning as to future conduct