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 addressed the Hearing Panel, noting that this was a review of the Private Hire Driver Licence held by AMA. The Licensing Unit had been notified of an IN10 conviction from July 2024 which attracted 6 penalty points and was a major traffic offence.

AMA addressed the Hearing Panel, supported by an interpreter provided by Manchester City Council, stating that they had been asked by a family member to pick up a new car from a dealership. AMA believed the car to have been taxed and insured but was stopped by the police who informed them that the car was uninsured.

The Licensing Unit officer questioned AMA. From those questions, AMA noted that they believed the car to have had temporary insurance to drive home from the dealership. AMA’s details had been provided to the dealership prior to collection. AMA had accepted the fixed penalty notice and 6 penalty points.

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

AMA summed up that they had not done this on purpose, having thought the car was insured.

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 with the mitigation provided by AMA and agreed that it appeared to have been a misunderstanding. The panel were satisfied that this was an isolated incident and were therefore willing to depart from their guidelines.

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 stated that this was an application for a new Private Hire Driver Licence. On the application, AF indicated they had received a caution in 2024. However, it was in 2023 and was a conviction, not a caution. The conviction appeared to be for a domestic violence issue. The conviction was within the guidelines.

AF addressed the Hearing Panel, acknowledging they had received a conviction for common assault in 2023 which was outlined in the report. It was a one-off incident that they regretted. It was a difficult time for AF’s family, and they had plead guilty. AF provided documents to the Hearing Panel which contained a statement from their wife and email exchanges with the CPS.

In questions from the Licensing Unit officer, AF provided further details regarding their conviction. AF wanted to be a Private Hire driver to have flexibility in their working hours. AF had only applied to Manchester.

The Licensing Unit officer summed up by stating that the conviction date of 2023 was within the guidelines which is 3 years.

AF had nothing 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 were satisfied that this was an isolated incident. The panel accepted AF’s explanation and agreed that AF had shown remorse. The panel were satisfied that AF was a fit and proper person to hold a licence and were therefore willing to depart from their guidelines.

Decision

To grant the Private Hire Driver Licence with a warning letter attached.

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

The Hearing Panel were informed that MJS had notified the Licensing Unit that they were unable to attend. The Panel were satisfied to defer consideration of the review to the next meeting.

Decision

To defer the item until 24 March 2025.

The report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Planning 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 MR had previously held both a Private Hire Driver Licence and a Hackney Carriage Driver Licence at Manchester. MR, on their new application, answered no to having ever had a licence refused, revoked or suspended. MR indicated a conviction on their application, providing no details. MR stated on their Statutory Declaration that the conviction was for Battery. MR failed to declare a recent TT99 conviction and that an application had been refused in 2016. MR had a previous conviction for a more serious assault in 2007.

MR addressed the Hearing Panel, stating that they had stopped working as a Licenced driver in 2015 and did not understand why an application was refused in 2016. The Licensing Unit officer stated that for the application to have been refused, a renewal application must have been submitted. MR disputed that. MR stated that they had been told by an Officer to not declare the TT99 conviction as it was spent. The Licensing Unit officer stated that the application form was clear that all convictions must be declared.

MR continued that their convictions were spent so saw no reason why they had to declare them. MR felt they had done nothing wrong. MR stated that the recent conviction for Battery was due to defending themselves. MR noted that they had held Licences before with no issues.

In questions from the Licensing Unit officer, MR provided further details regarding their recent conviction for Battery.

The Licensing Unit officer summed up by stating that they did not have the full details regarding the TT99. MR’s DVLA Licence needed to have been restored for three years to be outside the guidelines, that was not the case. The recent conviction for Battery was also within the guidelines.

MR summed up that they needed to get back into work.

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 there was no reason to depart from their guidelines. They did not deem MR to be a fit and proper person to hold a Licence.

Decision

To refuse to grant 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 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 stated that MI held both a Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Driver Licence. They were both suspended with immediate effect in January 2025 due to information received from GMP that MI had been driving their Private Hire vehicle whilst disqualified from driving.

MI addressed the Hearing Panel, stating that they did not go to Court due to having been out of the country. MI had to take their child somewhere which is why they drove the vehicle whilst disqualified. Whilst MI was out of the country, they asked a family member to inform the Licensing Unit of their disqualification and thought that had been done.

In questions from the Licensing Unit officer, MI acknowledged that they knew they had been disqualified from driving but still drove anyway. They had asked a family member to inform the Licensing Unit. They had not driven since but did have their DVLA Licence back.

The Licensing Unit officer summed up by stating that MI had admitted to driving whilst disqualified. MI was driving their Private Hire vehicle, although had said it was not for work. MI admitted to leaving their duties under Byelaws and conditions to their son regarding informing the Licensing Unit. MI had been in front of a Hearin Panel in 2024 for an MS90 conviction that they had not informed the Licensing Unit of.

MI apologised in summing up and stated that they were not a dangerous driver.

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 MI had not informed the Licensing Unit of their disqualification. MI knew they were disqualified but still drove their Private Hire vehicle, something the panel considered to be extremely serious. The panel felt this posed a high risk to the public. The panel noted that MI had previously been before a Hearing Panel for not informing the Licensing Unit of a conviction, and the panel agreed that MI had not learnt from this. The panel were not satisfied that MI was a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

Decision

To revoke the Private Hire Driver Licence and Hackney Carriage Driver Licence with immediate effect.

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 Hearing Panel that TA’s Licence had been suspended. TA had been sentenced to 15-years imprisonment for serious sexual offences.

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 saw no option other than revoking the Licence held by TA. They noted that TA had been convicted of serious sexual offences and had been sentenced to 15-years imprisonment for this. The Panel were satisfied that TA was not a fit and proper person to hold a Licence.

Decision

To revoke the Private Hire Driver Licence with immediate effect.

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 stated that LOE had disclosed a 28-day disqualification with an outline of the circumstances. LOE had an MS90 conviction and two speeding offences. The disqualification period had ended but was within the guidelines.

LOE stated that no points had been added to their Licence at the point of disqualification. After March, the two speeding offences will be removed from their Licence which will mean their Licence is then clean. The Licensing Unit officer accepted that.

LOE stated that they received the MS90 as no one had contacted them about it. LOE pleaded not guilty, but the Police said that they had pleaded guilty. LOE was driving at the time but stated they would have plead not guilty.

The Licensing Unit officer summed up by stating that LOE had been convicted and was not going to challenge that. The panel could not go behind that conviction.

LOE had nothing to add except the financial difficulties of not being able to work.

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 explanation provided by LOE. The Panel agreed that LOE was still a fit and proper person to hold a Licence and were willing to depart from their guidelines.

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 noted that JSR held both a Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Licence. There was an error in the report, and this was a review of both, not a renewal of the Hackney Carriage Driver Licence. JSR had a change to their DBS which detailed a police caution for common assault in 2024. Drivers are required to notify the Licensing Unit of any cautions or convictions, but the Licensing Unit had to chase this, showing that JSR had not met the conditions of their Licences.

JSR, supported by an interpreter provided by Manchester City Council, apologised for not informing the Licensing Unit, accepting their mistake. They had been driving for a long time. There had been issues at home.

In questions, JSR provided further details regarding their caution, which involved an incident at home.

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

JSR had nothing 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 noted that JSR was an experienced driver. This was an isolated incident and the Panel were therefore willing to depart from their guidelines.

Decision

To issue a warning as to future conduct.