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 Headof Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the above application. The Applicant attended the hearing. The Panel also considered the oral representations all parties who attended, as well as the relevant guidance. The matter was considered in line with the established procedure for taxi licensing hearings.

In reaching a decision the Panel took into consideration their Statement of Policy and Guidelines and Statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards.

The Panel was advised by the Senior Licensing Officer (Compliance) that a review of a Private Hire Vehicle had been undertaken following notice of recent cautions for assault and criminal damage.

The Panel reminded themselves of the statutory guidance concerning the Fit and Proper test at Section 5.4 which states:

Licensing authorities have a duty to ensure that any person to whom they grant a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence is a fit and proper person to be a licensee. It may be helpful when considering whether an applicant or licensee is fit and proper to pose oneself the following question:

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?

If, on the balance of probabilities, the answer to the question is no, the individual should not hold a licence. Licensing authorities have to make difficult decisions but (subject to the General principles) the safeguarding of the public is paramount. All decisions on the suitability of an applicant or licensee should be made on the balance of probability. This means that an applicant or licensee should not be given the benefit of doubt. If the committee or delegated officer is only 50/50 as to whether the applicant or licensee is fit and proper, they should not hold a licence. The threshold used here is lower than for a criminal conviction (that being beyond reasonable doubt) and can take into consideration conduct that has not resulted in a criminal conviction.

The offences of criminal damage and common assault to which the Applicant received a caution fall within their Statement of Policy and Guidelines, however the Panel concluded they could depart from their guidelines on this occasion. The Applicant gave a very honest and open account as to circumstances surrounding the offences. The Applicant was extremely remorseful for his actions. Having listened to the circumstances surrounding the offences the Panel concluded that the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence, however they deemed it appropriate to issue a warning.

Decision

To issue a warning with regard to future conduct.

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

The Hearing Panel considered the report from the Headof Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the above application. The Applicant attended the hearing alongside a supportive friend and was assisted in the hearing with Interpreter that was provided by the Council. 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.

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 was advised by the Senior Licensing Officer (Compliance) that in submitting his application, reference was given to a conviction for IN10 - Using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks.

The Panel reminded themselves of the Statement of policy and Guidelines  regarding the offence which states:

“IN10 - No Insurance is classed as a Major Traffic Offence. An application will normally be refused whereby an applicant has a conviction for a major traffic offence where the conviction is less than 2 years prior to the date of the application.”

The Panel then reminded themselves of the statutory guidance regarding the Fit and Proper Test, Section 5.4 of which states:

Licensing authorities have a duty to ensure that any person to whom they grant a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence is a fit and proper person to be a licensee. It may be helpful when considering whether an applicant or licensee is fit and proper to pose oneself the following question:

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?

If, on the balance of probabilities, the answer to the question is no, the individual should not hold a licence. Licensing authorities have to make difficult decisions but (subject to the General principles) the safeguarding of the public is paramount. All decisions on the suitability of an applicant or licensee should be made on the balance of probability. This means that an applicant or licensee should not be given the benefit of doubt. If the committee or delegated officer is only 50/50 as to whether the applicant or licensee is fit and proper, they should not hold a licence. The threshold used here is lower than for a criminal conviction (that being beyond reasonable doubt) and can take into consideration conduct that has not resulted in a criminal conviction.

The Panel carefully considered all of the evidence, including the circumstances surrounding the offences as described by the Applicant. The Sub-Panel takes a dim view of drivers who drive without insurance due to the risk posed to other road users, however, the Panel felt they could depart from their guidelines  on this occasion and concluded on the balance of probabilities that the Applicant was a fit and proper  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

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

The Hearing Panel considered the report from the Headof Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the above application. The Applicant attended the hearing along with a supportive friend and was assisted in the hearing with Interpreter that was provided by the Council. 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.

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 was advised by the Senior Licensing Officer (Compliance) that he had been advised by the processing team that the Applicant’s conduct at a knowledge test he had attended earlier in the day had been reported as an issue and that this was not the first time his conduct had raised concerns.

The Panel considered the allegations made against the Applicant and reminded themselves of the statutory guidance concerning the Fit and Proper test which states at Section 5.4:

Licensing authorities have a duty to ensure that any person to whom they grant a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence is a fit and proper person to be a licensee. It may be helpful when considering whether an applicant or licensee is fit and proper to pose oneself the following question:

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?

If, on the balance of probabilities, the answer to the question is no, the individual should not hold a licence. Licensing authorities have to make difficult decisions but (subject to the General principles) the safeguarding of the public is paramount. All decisions on the suitability of an applicant or licensee should be made on the balance of probability. This means that an applicant or licensee should not be given the benefit of doubt. If the Panel or delegated officer is only 50/50 as to whether the applicant or licensee is fit and proper, they should not hold a licence. The threshold used here is lower than for a criminal conviction (that being beyond reasonable doubt) and can take into consideration conduct that has not resulted in a criminal conviction.

The Panel made it very clear to the Applicant that behaviour of this kind should not be tolerated. However, having listened to the explanation given by Applicant, the Panel was satisfied that this would not occur again and accepted his account.

The Panel carefully considered all of the evidence, and by applying the tests set out above concluded on the balance of probabilities that subject to the successful completion of outstanding checks, the Applicant is fit and proper to hold a Private Hire Drivers’ Licence. They also agreed that the licence, once granted, should be marked with a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

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

The Hearing Panel considered the report from the Headof Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the above application. The Licensee and his Representative attended the hearing and the oral representations of the parties who attended were also considered, as well as the relevant guidance. The Licensee was assisted in the hearing by an interpreter that was provided by the Council. The matter was considered in line with the established procedure for taxi licensing hearings.

The Senior Licensing Officer (Compliance) advised the Panel that the Licensee had been brought under review due to an accumulation of recent complaints from customers.  An overview of the Licensee’s complaints history was appended to the report.

In reaching its decision the Panel took into consideration their Statement of Policy and Guidelines and Statutory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards.

In respect of statutory guidance concerning the Fit and Proper test which states at Section 5.4, the Panel was mindful that:

Licensing authorities have a duty to ensure that any person to whom they grant a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence is a fit and proper person to be a licensee. It may be helpful when considering whether an applicant or licensee is fit and proper to pose oneself the following question:

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?

If, on the balance of probabilities, the answer to the question is no, the individual should not hold a licence. Licensing authorities have to make difficult decisions but (subject to the General principles) the safeguarding of the public is paramount. All decisions on the suitability of an applicant or licensee should be made on the balance of probability. This means that an applicant or licensee should not be given the benefit of doubt. If the committee or delegated officer is only 50/50 as to whether the applicant or licensee is fit and proper, they should not hold a licence. The threshold used here is lower than for a criminal conviction (that being beyond reasonable doubt) and can take into consideration conduct that has not resulted in a criminal conviction.

The Panel took into account that the Licensee had been a driver for a significant period of time. There had been 10 complaints against this driver between the period of 2004-2024.

Having listened carefully to the circumstances that were outlined in the hearing, with particular reference to the two most recent complaints, the Panel concluded on the balance of probabilities that the Licensee is a fit and proper person to hold a Private Hire Drivers’ Licence. However in view of an apparent pattern of behaviour, the Panel deemed it appropriate to place a warning on the licence about future conduct.

Decision

To place a warning on the license with regard to the Driver’s future conduct and behaviour.

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

The Hearing Panel considered the report from the Headof Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the above application. The Applicant attended the hearing and the oral representations of the parties who attended were also considered, as well as the relevant guidance. The Applicant was assisted in the hearing by an interpreter that was provided by the Council. The matter was considered in line with the established procedure for taxi licensing hearings.

In reaching its decision the Panel took into consideration their Statement of Policy and Guidelines and Statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards.

The Senior Licensing Officer (Compliance) advised the Panel that the application had been brought for consideration by the Sub-Panel as the Applicant had a conviction for using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks (IN10) on his license, a matter he had failed to disclose. Such convictions are considered a major traffic offence which fell within the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and Guidelines.

In the hearing the Applicant explained that he had not disclosed the IN10 offence to the Local Authority due to there being a language barrier. He told the Panel that he had asked a friend to complete the application for him. Regarding the incident itself, the Applicant told the Panel that he had been stopped by the police for having no insurance, he explained that he thought his brother had put him on the insurance. The Panel was subsequently advised that his brother also did not speak English, so he had relied upon a friend to arrange the insurance. The Applicant during questioning indicated that the reason why he was stopped by the police was possibly due to poor driving. The Panel found the Applicant’s account inaccurate and misleading.

During questioning it emerged that the Applicant had obtained his full driving licence on 13 December 2023. His provisional licence was issued on 5 October 2022.  The IN10 offence had occurred on 12 September 2022.  

The Panel was mindful of the statutory guidance concerning the Fit and Proper test which states at Section 5.4:

Licensing authorities have a duty to ensure that any person to whom they grant a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence is a fit and proper person to be a licensee. It may be helpful when considering whether an applicant or licensee is fit and proper to pose oneself the following question:

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?

If, on the balance of probabilities, the answer to the question is no, the individual should not hold a licence. Licensing authorities have to make difficult decisions but (subject to the General principles) the safeguarding of the public is paramount. All decisions on the suitability of an applicant or licensee should be made on the balance of probability. This means that an applicant or licensee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

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

This hearing was deferred to the next scheduled hearing date (6 June 2024) at the Applicants request due to a hospital appointment. 

Decision

To defer the hearing to the next scheduled meeting date for taxi licensing matters (3 June 2024)

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

The Hearing Panel considered the report from the Headof Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the above application. The Licensee attended the hearing and the oral representations of the parties who attended were also considered, as well as the relevant guidance. The matter was considered in line with the established procedure for taxi licensing hearings.

The Senior Licensing Officer (Compliance) advised the Panel that the matter had been brought under review by the Panel due to a recent conviction for Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle(CU80), involving the use of a mobile phone , attracting 6 penalty points and deemed a major traffic offence.

The Panel noted that the Licensee had two allegations regarding drugs offences, where both had resulted in no action being taken by the police. The Licensee explained that he had changed his life around and at the time was hanging around with the wrong type of people. The Licensee had also received a fixed penalty for a CU80 Breach of requirements as to control a vehicle (mobile phone) where he received 6 penalty points.

The Panel considered their Statement of Policy and Guidelines which states:

CU80 Breach of requirements as to control a vehicle (mobile phone) is classed as a Major Traffic Offence – 6pp. An application will normally be refused whereby an applicant has a conviction for a major traffic offence where the conviction is less than 2 years prior to the date of the application.

The Panel remind themselves of the statutory guidance concerning the Fit and Proper test which states at section 5.4:

Licensing authorities have a duty to ensure that any person to whom they grant a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence is a fit and proper person to be a licensee. It may be helpful when considering whether an applicant or licensee is fit and proper to pose oneself the following question:

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?

If, on the balance of probabilities, the answer to the question is no, the individual should not hold a licence. Licensing authorities have to make difficult decisions but (subject to the General principles) the safeguarding of the public is paramount. All decisions on the suitability of an applicant or licensee should be made on the balance of probability. This means that an applicant or licensee should not be given the benefit of doubt. If the committee or delegated officer is only 50/50 as to whether the applicant or licensee is fit and proper, they should not hold a licence. The threshold used here is lower than for a criminal conviction (that being beyond reasonable doubt) and can take into consideration conduct that has not resulted in a criminal conviction.

Regarding the Applicant using his phone whilst driving, the Panel accepted the Applicant’s explanation about  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

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

The Hearing Panel considered the report from the Headof Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the above application. The Applicant attended the hearing with the support of an interpreter that was provided by the Council.  The oral representations of all parties who attended the hearing were also considered, as well as the relevant guidance. The matter was considered in line with the established procedure for taxi licensing hearings.

In reaching its decision the Panel took into consideration their Statement of Policy and Guidelines and Statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards.

The Senior Licensing Officer (Compliance) advised the Panel that the application had been brought for consideration by the Sub-Panel as the Applicant had a conviction for plying for hire and using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks (IN10) on his license, a matter he had failed to disclose. Such convictions are considered a major traffic offence which fell within the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and Guidelines.

The Panel reminded themselves of the statutory guidance concerning the fit and proper test which states at paragraph 5.4:

Licensing authorities have a duty to ensure that any person to whom they grant a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence is a fit and proper person to be a licensee. It may be helpful when considering whether an applicant or licensee is fit and proper to pose oneself the following question:

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?

If, on the balance of probabilities, the answer to the question is no, the individual should not hold a licence. Licensing authorities have to make difficult decisions but (subject to the General principles) the safeguarding of the public is paramount. All decisions on the suitability of an applicant or licensee should be made on the balance of probability. This means that an applicant or licensee should not be given the benefit of doubt. If the Panel or delegated officer is only 50/50 as to whether the applicant or licensee is fit and proper, they should not hold a licence. The threshold used here is lower than for a criminal conviction (that being beyond reasonable doubt) and can take into consideration conduct that has not resulted in a criminal conviction.

A very dim view is taken of drivers who ply for hire/no insurance and therefore the Panel considered revoking the licence, however they considered the drivers genuine remorse and the full admissions made. The Licence Holder pleaded guilty to the offences at the earliest opportunity.  The Panel noted he had been a driver for 10 years with an excellent driving record. Therefore, the Panel treated the offences as isolated and agreed to depart from their guidelines.

Having considered all the evidence and applying the relevant tests, the Panel concluded on the balance of probabilities that the Licence Holder is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

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

The Hearing Panel considered the report from the Headof Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the above application. The Licence Holder attended the hearing and the oral representations of the parties who attended were also considered, as well as the relevant guidance. The matter was considered in line with the established procedure for taxi licensing hearings.

In reaching its decision the Panel took into consideration their Statement of Policy and Guidelines and Statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards.

The Senior Licensing Officer (Compliance) advised the Panel that the matter had brought for consideration in view of a complaint from a member of the public about having witnessed him urinating in the street.

In providing his account of the matter, the Licence Holderwas very apologetic for his actions and was clearly remorseful. It was clear from the evidence given by the Licence Holder that he had learnt his lesson, and this could be classed as an isolated incident. The Licence Holder reassured the Panel that he would not do this again.

The Panel reminded themselves of the statutory guidance concerning the Fit and Proper test which states at paragraph 5.4:

Licensing authorities have a duty to ensure that any person to whom they grant a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence is a fit and proper person to be a licensee. It may be helpful when considering whether an applicant or licensee is fit and proper to pose oneself the following question:

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?

If, on the balance of probabilities, the answer to the question is no, the individual should not hold a licence. Licensing authorities have to make difficult decisions but (subject to the General principles) the safeguarding of the public is paramount. All decisions on the suitability of an applicant or licensee should be made on the balance of probability. This means that an applicant or licensee should not be given the benefit of doubt. If the Panel or delegated officer is only 50/50 as to whether the applicant or licensee is fit and proper, they should not hold a licence. The threshold used here is lower than for a criminal conviction (that being beyond reasonable doubt) and can take into consideration conduct that has not resulted in a criminal conviction.

Having considered all of the evidence and having applied the relevant tests, the Panel concluded on the balance of probabilities that the Licence Holder is fit and proper to hold a private hire drivers’ licence.

Decision

To take no action.