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 Licensing Unit Officer informed the Hearing Panel that FJI had informed the unit of their GP appointment which had been scheduled for the same time as the hearing.

Decision

To defer FJI’s hearing to the next available date.

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 review. 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 Licensing Unit Officer addressed the Hearing Panel and stated that FK informed the Licensing Unit in October 2024 that they had been handed a suspended 21 month prison sentence with 200 hours unpaid work but gave no further details. After being contacted by the unit, FK provide details related to 4 offences of a serious sexual and pornographic nature. FK had pleaded guilty to these offences at court in July and was sentenced in October. FK had not notified the Licensing Unit of these offences until the end of October but once they were discovered the licence was suspended with immediate effect. This remained the case for FK’s licence and it would be for the Hearing Panel to determine the next course of action.

There were no questions for the Licensing Unit Officer.

FK addressed the Hearing Panel and stated that the offences had occurred during COVID and they had been ill. FK could not work, was bed bound and receiving lots of messages from friends. FK had received these indecent images and accidentally forwarded them on to friends without checking the content. When FK was alerted to the content of the attachments, they were shocked. FK stated that there were only 2 or 3 attachments in total, that they deleted them all and contacted the police. The police had found the images to be still on the phone. FK claimed that all of this happened to them and they did not know who sent the images to them.

In responding to questions, FK stated that:

• They did not know what the content was as they were ill at the time
• Forwarding the attachments/images on was a mistake
• After 3 weeks FK deleted the images but the police checked and the images were still inside the phone
• FK knew to call the police and that this imagery was against the law
• FK did not create any of the images
• If FK had checked the attachments before forwarding them on, they would have called the police straight away
• FK’ saidthey had  had forwarded the images rather than created them and that if they had created them FK would have received a lengthy prison sentence

The Legal representative to the Hearing Panel clarified the matter over the meaning of “making” images, which can mean saving to a device.

In summing up, the Licensing Unit Officer stated that this was a very serious matter and that anyone having these convictions should mean that a licence is not granted or is revoked.

In summing up their case, FK stated that this was a mistake that would not be repeated. They had been in receipt of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 123.

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

The Licensing Unit Officer noted that this item had been dealt with at a previous hearing, was on the agenda by mistake and therefore withdrawn.

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

The Licensing Unit Officer stated that this was a new application, that MG had been uncontactable and had not arrived for the hearing.

Decision

To defer until the next available date where the matter may be determined in MG’s absence.

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 Licensing Unit Officer addressed the Hearing Panel and stated that this was a new application. There were a number of convictions spanning a 20 year period from 1999 to consider. Convictions had been handed down for assault, theft, harassment and drugs offences. ZM’s last conviction was from 2018 which showed a 6 year period without any convictions leading up to the present day. The Hearing Panel were asked to consider ZM’s lack of a full disclosure and the totality of offences in determining whether a licence should be granted.

There were no questions for the Licensing Unit Officer.

ZM addressed the Hearing Panel and stated that they were currently doing painting and decorating work but enjoyed driving and would prefer taxi work. ZM understood that the string of convictions on their report did not look good but explained that they had a difficult period in their younger days. Their mother was blind and when ZM was 16 years old she was murdered. Previously, ZM was doing well but not long after this event, ZM mixed with a bad crown and became involved in drugs and crime, at times becoming homeless. The majority of convictions were from this period and it took ZM over 10 years to get clean from drugs. In addressing the latest conviction from 2018, ZM stated that they were in a volatile relationship and that ZM went to prison for ABH but part of the report referring to a broken eye socket was not true and this would have put ZM behind bars for 5+ years. ZM left the relationship had now moved onto a better phase in their life. ZM was now married and settled down.

In responding to questions, ZM stated that:

• Their mother died in October 1995
• They had started their involvement with drugs and addiction in 1998/99
• After attempts to quit via various means, ZM’s father sent them to Pakistan to a military style rehab centre which worked for good in 2008
• After quitting there was still a crew around ZM who were a bad influence
• This was another battle that took time to conquer
• In terms of alerting the Licensing Unit to the number of convictions on ZM’s record, ZM stated that the online portal allowed for the addition of 5 convictions, hence they had only referred to 5 convictions on application
• ZM understood it would have been useful to have referred to more as honesty is always an issue when considering a person for a licence
• ZM had not applied to any other authorities for a taxi licence
• ZM was over 16 when their mother died but their younger siblings were taken  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126.

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 review. 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 Licensing Unit Officer stated that AH had informed the unit of their 12 month disqualification and £500 fine but no further details were given. On further inspection, the licensing unit discovered that AH received these convictions for driving or attempting to drive with a drug level over the specified limit and also exceeding the speed limit on a motorway which attracted 6 penalty points. AH did not currently have an active DBS account and this was a requirement for all licenced drivers in the city so that the unit can have access to all information on drivers’ backgrounds and any changes

In response to a question from the Chair, the Licensing Unit Officer stated that AH received a suspended licence, therefore it was 6 points and not 12 points handed down.

AH addressed the Hearing Panel and stated that after they were caught speeding, they had left the UK for 6-8 weeks and the offence then slipped their mind and then the same had occurred for the drug driving offence. On 3 October 2024, when AH applied to have their licence back, AH presumed that the unit would be aware of these offences.

In response to questions, AH stated that:

• AH was not in their licenced vehicle at the time of either of the offences
• AH was returning from Scotland with a bar of gold when they had an unmarked police car drive quickly behind them, making AH speed up
• AH was travelling at almost 100mph for the speeding incident
• AH was carrying gold as they were working in the jewellery trade
• AH was driving their children and had honked their horn at another driver, alerting the police who noted that AH’s eyes were red and had AH take a drug test
• AH stated that they did not take drugs when their children were in the vehicle with them and stated that the drugs were still in their system from an earlier time
• AH had sent in their licence as soon as they were disqualified in October 2023
• AH had applied and paid for their DBS subscription recently
• The DBS expired last year as AH had not kept on top of their emails
• It was a coincidence that the DBS update request and the conviction had come through at the same time and this led AH to think that the licencing unit were contacting them as they were aware of the conviction
• AH was no longer involved in jewellery but had worked as a labourer to make ends meet
• AH responded to the Chair’s question on how he would fair from a drug test today by stating that hopefully there would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 127.

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

The Licensing Unit Officer stated that CAS had not arrived for their licence application hearing, that they had also missed the appointment for the previous month and that the next Hearing Panel may wish to determine the case in CAS’s absence at the next hearing.

Decision

To defer until the next available date where the matter may be determined in CAS’s absence.

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 review. 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 Licensing Unit Officer stated that JGO had informed the unit of an offence whereby they had been convicted of using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks, incurring 6 penalty points. JGO had been driving their partner’s car while uninsured.

There were no questions for the Licensing Unit Officer.

JGO addressed the Hearing Panel and began by handing out documents pertaining to insurance policies to help explain their case. JGO stated that they had been a driver for the past 13 years, 7 of which they had held a taxi licence with Manchester City Council with no convictions. JGO had been a driver with a Manchester firm for 2 years some time ago. After spending some time abroad, JGO returned to the UK and could not afford a car but had a food delivery job. JGO had used their partner’s car for this work and had themselves insured. The insurance company then asked JGO to provide information for a 2 year gap in their no claims bonus. JGO requested information from his previous employer at the Manchester taxi firm but the insurance policy was cancelled by the company in the meantime, unbeknownst by JGO who missed the email regarding this. During a food delivery job the police pulled JGO over in his partner’s car as the tail light was faulty. The police made routine checks and found JGO to be uninsured on the vehicle for business use. JGO was unhappy about the incident but explained that they need to have a living and continue earning money. JGO now had a car again and wished to return to taxi driving work.

In response to questions, JGO stated that:

• They had two insurance policies from the same year, one from April and the other from May 2024
• The April policy was the one that was cancelled by the insurers
• The May policy was started the day after JGO had been picked up by the police
• The police could not impound the vehicle as it was insured fully comprehensive, but JGO was uninsured to use the vehicle for  business use

The Licensing Unit Officer summed up by stating that JGO’s previous employer in the taxi trade had also provided a letter of support as to the good character and nature of JGO.

JGO summed up their case by stating that the incident occurred due to a technicality, was not intentional on their part and asked for leniency from the Hearing Panel.

In their deliberations, the Hearing Panel considered that JGO had been confused in what was a technical matter and this was somewhat understandable. JGO had an otherwise clean record making this a one  ...  view the full minutes text for item 129.

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

The Licensing Unit Officer stated that this renewal matter had only been discovered at very late notice prior to the reports being finalised for this hearing, adding that the licensing unit had received no reply from AMR about whether they could attend the hearing. AMR had not arrived and was uncontactable. The licensing unit would invite AMR to the next meeting and the Hearing Panel could be satisfied that AMR could not perform any work in the meantime.

Decision

To defer AMR’s case until the next available date.