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 the report from the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the above review. The oral representations of all of the parties who attended 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 noted that this was a review of a Hackney Carriage Driver Licence held by CDK. The review had been brought due to the number of complaints received about CDK. The complaints dated back to 2017 and there were 10 complaints on CDK’s record, mainly relating to their conduct and not using the meter.

CDK, supported by an interpreter and a representative, stated that they do sometimes forget to use the meter, explaining that they sometimes have other things on their mind. CDK addressed the complaints contained within the report, providing their own version of events. CDK stated that they had never received a speeding ticket and had never been stopped by the police.

CDK’s representative, in addressing one of the complaints, stated their belief that a Licensing officer who had been involved in an issue with CDK had then contacted CDK regarding that incident. The representative stated that they felt the person contacting CDK should have been independent.

The Licensing Unit officer asked CDK questions. CDK stated that they had forgotten to use the meter on occasion, but this was not a deliberate act. The prices CDK had quoted to customers were not extortionate and were only a few pounds more than the estimated meter price.

The panel then asked CDK questions. CDK stated that they knew the rules and regulations of being a driver but forgot to use the meter on the odd occasion due to stress and personal issues. CDK stated that they understood part of their job as a Hackney Carriage Driver was to turn the meter on for all fares.

The Licensing Unit officer summed up by stating that they did not believe the explanations provided by CDK were credible and felt CDK had shown no remorse for their behaviour. They did not believe CDK’s conduct had been conducive to the role of a Hackney Carriage driver in Manchester.

CDK summed up by stating that they had apologised for all complaints at the time and did too at the hearing. They stated they were remorseful and embarrassed.

In reaching its decision, the Panel took into consideration the Council’s Statement of Policy and Guidelines and statutory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards. The panel were satisfied that CDK’s behaviour was repeated and that they had been warned on numerous occasions by the Licensing Unit but had not altered their conduct. The panel felt it fair to conclude that CDK had been deliberately overcharging. As an experienced driver, the panel did not accept that CDK forgot to put the meter on. The panel agreed that CDK had shown no remorse for their actions.

Decision

To suspend the Hackney Carriage Driver Licence for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

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

The Hearing Panel were informed that CAS had withdrawn their application prior to the hearing, therefore no decision was necessary.

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

The Hearing Panel were informed that AMA was abroad and unable to attend the hearing. AMA had provided proof to the Licensing Unit of being out of the country. As this was the first opportunity for AMA to attend a hearing, the panel agreed to defer the hearing to a later date.

Decision

To defer consideration of the review until 17 February 2025.

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

The Hearing Panel considered the report from the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the above review. The oral representations of all of the parties who attended 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 informed the panel that this was a review of the Private Hire Driver Licence held by UBI. A DVLA Summary had highlighted a conviction for an MS90 which was a major traffic offence, attracting 6 penalty points and a £660 fine. UBI had informed the unit that they were unaware of the proceedings which was why they had not informed the Licensing Unit of the offence.

UBI addressed the panel stating that they were unaware of the conviction. They had leased a vehicle in which they were caught speeding. UBI confirmed to the lease company that it was them driving at the time and the company told UBI that they would send on their details to the DVLA. UBI had heard nothing since that time. UBI only realised they had been convicted following the DVLA summary.

The Licensing Unit officer had nothing to add when invited to sum up.

UBI summed up by stating that they were aware of their obligation to inform the Licensing Unit of any offences or convictions but could not in this case due to not knowing about it.

In reaching its decision, the Panel took into consideration the Council’s Statement of Policy and Guidelines and statutory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards. The panel accepted the reasons put forward by UBI for having not informed the Licensing Unit. The panel were satisfied that this was an isolated incident and were willing to depart from their guidelines due to this. The panel were satisfied that UBI remained a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

Decision

To issue a warning as to future conduct.

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

The Hearing Panel considered the report from the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the above application. The oral representations of all of the parties who attended 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, noting that this was an application for a new Private Hire Driver Licence. MAM had answered no to having any spent or unspent criminal or traffic convictions on their application form. A Statutory Declaration submitted by MAM then confirmed a conviction for an MS90 – failure to give information as to the identity of a driver. This attracted 6 penalty points and a £660 fine.

MAM addressed the Hearing Panel and stated that they had been unaware of the letters regarding the offence. They had been travelling a lot to their Mum’s house in a different city.

Under questions from the Licensing Unit officer, MAM stated that the letters were going to their house but due to travelling to their mother’s house elsewhere a lot they had not kept on top of their post. They had not seen any letters relating to the offence. The person driving the vehicle at the time of the offence was not MAM. MAM had told the person driving to deal with it, but they had not, and MAM acknowledged that it was their mistake leaving it to someone else. The offence that led to the conviction was speeding.

The Licensing Unit officer had nothing to add when invited to sum up.

MAM summed up by stating that they wanted to improve their life and do better for themselves.

In reaching its decision, the Panel took into consideration the Council’s Statement of Policy and Guidelines and statutory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards. The panel were satisfied that MAM accepted their mistake and had shown remorse. The panel were willing to depart from their guidelines due to this being an isolated incident. The panel deemed MAM to be a fit and proper person to hold a Licence.

Decision

To grant the application with a warning letter attached.

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

The Hearing Panel considered the report from the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the above application. The oral representations of all of the parties who attended 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, stating that this was a new application. EOA had answered no to having any spent or unspent criminal or traffic convictions on their application. On a Statutory Declaration, EOA then declared a single conviction for speeding. When the Licensing Unit received EOA’s DVLA Summary, it showed a TT99 totting up conviction that had not been declared by EOA. The conviction had led to a 6-month riving disqualification. The conviction was within the guidelines that the panel had to consider.

EOA addressed the Hearing Panel, stating that they had made an error on their application form. They thought that their Licence would be clean after the end of the disqualification, therefore assumed it did not have to be declared. They acknowledged their mistake.

Under questions from the Licensing Unit officer, EOA explained that they had read the question on the application form incorrectly. On their Statutory Declaration, EOA submitted a conviction but left off the disqualification. EOA stated that was due to the disqualification having ended and not knowing they had to declare that. EOA confirmed that they had received 3 penalty points for their most recent speeding conviction.

The Licensing Unit officer summed up by stating that the disqualification and most recent speeding conviction were still within the guidelines.

EOA summed up by apologising for their error.

In reaching its decision, the Panel took into consideration the Council’s Statement of Policy and Guidelines and statutory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards. The panel considered that their Statement of Policy and Guidelines which states that:

“An application will generally be refused unless a period of 3 years free from conviction has elapsed from the restoration of the DVLA licence”

The panel were satisfied that EOA’s convictions were still within the guidelines. The panel agreed that the non-disclosure of information relating to EOA’s disqualification was deliberate. The panel did not deem EOA to be a fit and proper person to hold a Private Hire Driver Licence.

Decision

To refuse to grant the application for a new Private Hire Driver Licence.

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

The Hearing Panel considered the report from the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the above application. The oral representations of all of the parties who attended 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, noting that this was an application for a New Hackney Carriage Driver Licence and not a Private Hire Driver Licence as published. UM had declared several convictions on their application. The convictions related to driving whilst disqualified, driving with no insurance, and driving or attempting to drive with alcohol level above the limit. UM was disqualified from driving for a period of 46 months in 2017. This disqualification ended in 2023 which meant that it remained in the guidelines until 2028.

UM provided a written statement to the Hearing Panel at the hearing. UM accepted that they had made huge mistakes but stated that they were now a changed person. Their last offence was six years ago. They were embarrassed by their record. UM noted that they had not drank since their last offence. UM had recently been working as a courier and delivery driver.

Under questions from the Licensing Unit officer, UM stated they did not have a problem with drinking but had drunk too much and made stupid decisions. UM had driven whilst disqualified and accepted that as another stupid mistake. They noted there were ongoing family issues at the time. UM was now married. Family members were in the taxi trade and UM felt that gaining a Hackney Carriage Licence would be an achievement. UM had only applied to Manchester.

The Licensing Unit officer had nothing to add when invited to sum up.

UM summed up by stating that they were a changed person and that they had waited a long time for this opportunity.

In reaching its decision, the Panel took into consideration the Council’s Statement of Policy and Guidelines and statutory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards. The panel agreed that UM had a very poor driving record which had led to two length periods of disqualification. The panel did not believe there had been a sufficient period of rehabilitation. The panel were satisfied that the disqualification was still within their guidelines and were not willing to depart from them. The panel did not deem UM to be a fit and proper person to hold a Licence.

Decision

To refuse the application for a new Hackney Carriage Driver Licence.

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

The Hearing Panel considered the report from the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the above application. The oral representations of all of the parties who attended 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, stating that this was an application for a New Private Hire Driver Licence. JA had a conviction for an IN10 – using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks which is a major traffic conviction. JA had not declared this on their application form but did declare the conviction on their Statutory Declaration. The conviction was still within the guidelines.

JA addressed the Hearing Panel, apologising for the conviction. They had been driving a family member’s mobility vehicle and thought they were insured. JA has family members in the trade and felt that the career made sense for them.

In questions from the Licensing Unit officer and the panel, JA stated that a family member had told them they were insured. JA did not know they were uninsured as a family member normally deals with their insurance.

The Licensing Unit officer summed up by stating that it was clear JA had driven with no insurance.

JA summed up by stating that they had plead guilty to the offence and accepted their mistake.

In reaching its decision, the Panel took into consideration the Council’s Statement of Policy and Guidelines and statutory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards. The panel accepted the mitigation put forward by JA. The panel acknowledged that the conviction was still within the guidelines, however they were willing to depart from them due to this being an isolated incident. The panel were satisfied that JA was a fit and proper person to hold a Private Hire Driver Licence.

Decision

To grant the application with a warning as to future conduct attached.

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

The Hearing Panel considered the report from the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the above renewal application. The oral representations of all of the parties who attended 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, stating that this was a renewal application due to ZA’s Licence having expired recently. ZA had failed to answer the question ‘Have you ever had any criminal convictions, cautions, Fixed Penalty Notices, Penalty Notices for Disorder and/or community resolutions against you (including motoring offences)?’ as part of their renewal application. ZA submitted a Statutory Declaration on the same day as the renewal application. This detailed a conviction for an IN10 which attracted 6 penalty points. This was a major traffic offence. The panel were required to consider the conviction and ZA’s failure to notify the Licensing Unit.

ZA addressed the Hearing Panel, noting that they were with a friend who was a delivery driver. Whilst delivering food, they were stopped by the police and ZA was not insured for business use. ZA stated that they had not informed the Licensing Unit as the offence did not occur whilst driving their Private Hire vehicle.

In questions from the Licensing Unit, ZA stated that this was a one-off and they now knew to inform the Licensing Unit of any offences or convictions. ZA accepted the penalty points and fine relating to this conviction.

Neither the Licensing Unit officer nor ZA had anything to add when invited to sum up.

In reaching its decision, the Panel took into consideration the Council’s Statement of Policy and Guidelines and statutory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards. The panel acknowledged that this conviction was within the guidelines, however, they were willing to depart from the guidelines as the conviction was an isolated incident. The panel accepted the explanation provided by ZA as to the events that led to the conviction and why they had not informed the Licensing Unit. The panel were satisfied that ZA remained a fit and proper person to hold a Private Hire Driver Licence.

Decision

To grant the renewal application with a warning letter attached as to future conduct.

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

The Hearing Panel considered the report from the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the above application. The oral representations of all of the parties who attended 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, stating that this was an application for a new Private Hire Driver Licence. On the application form, DMN had answered no to having any spent or unspent criminal or traffic convictions. DMN had also answered no on their Statutory Declaration to having any traffic offences that are pending or that they had been convicted of. Following a DLVA Summary, it was found that DMN had a conviction for an IN10 from 2024 and a TT99 totting up disqualification for 12-months from 2021.

DMN addressed the Hearing Panel and stated that they had been told they were insured by a friend, however they were stopped by the police as they were not. DMN now purchases short-term cover if driving other vehicles. They accepted their mistakes and apologised.

In questions from the Licensing Unit officer, DMN accepted that they had 3 separate convictions for IN10, driving uninsured against third party risks. They explained that two of the occasions were when they had purchased insurance, but it had not started yet. The other occasion was driving a friend’s vehicle that they had said was insured but it was not. DMN did not declare the disqualification as they thought their Licence was clear from that. They did not declare the most recent IN10 conviction as they had read the question incorrectly and thought it only related to criminal convictions and not traffic.

The Licensing Unit officer had nothing to add when invited to sum up.

DMN summed up by stating that they took responsibility for their actions, and they wanted a better life. They apologised for and acknowledged their mistakes.

In reaching its decision, the Panel took into consideration the Council’s Statement of Policy and Guidelines and statutory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards. The panel were satisfied that the most recent IN10 conviction and the disqualification remained within the guidelines. The panel were not willing to depart from their guidelines as these were not isolated incidents. The panel felt that the safety of passengers was vital, and they agreed that DMN’s driving record was poor. The panel did not deem DMN to be a fit and proper person to hold a Private Hire Driver Licence.

Decision

To refuse the application.