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 private hire driver licence. FJI had been before the sub-committee in 2023 for an assault conviction. FJI’s licence was suspended for 1-month on that occasion. In July 2024, FJI informed the Unit of a conviction for breaching a restraining order and their intention to appeal the decision. The restraining order in place was linked to the previous assault.

FJI addressed the Hearing Panel and confirmed that they were arrested for a breach of a restraining order. A letter was written and sent by post which classed as a breach. FJI wanted to appeal the decision but was advised not to by their legal representative. FJI apologised for not informing the Licensing Unit as soon as they were arrested.

In questions from the Licensing Unit, FJI informed them what the letter had said. The letter was typed, with a handwritten envelope and the victim had stated that they recognised it as FJI’s handwriting. FJI had plead not guilty, but the court found them guilty. FJI accepted their mistake by not informing the Licensing Unit sooner and was aware that it was a condition of the licence to do so.

In questions from the panel, FJI stated their belief that someone else had sent the letter. The restraining order was still in place until April 2025.

The Licensing Unit officer summed up that the court had found FJI guilty. A query was raised about whether FJI was signed up to the DBS Service which is a requirement of their licence. It was subsequently confirmed that FJI was signed up to the service.

FJI summed up by apologising that they had to attend a sub-committee again. They had been struggling mentally and it was only their job that helped with this. FJI wanted to move on from these issues. FJI confirmed that nothing new would appear on their new DBS when received by the Licensing Unit.

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 they could not go behind the decision of the court to find FJI guilty. The panel, however, were satisfied that FJI was not a danger to the public and was 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 noted that this was an application for a new Private Hire Driver Licence. On the application, MG had indicated that they had no spent or unspent criminal convictions, and no traffic offences pending or that they had been convicted of. MG indicated the same regarding traffic offences on their statutory declaration. However, MG’s DVLA Summary highlighted to the Unit that this was not the case and there were convictions for an IN10 (using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks) and TT99 (‘totting up’ leading to disqualification). The convictions were within the guidelines and were not declared as part of the application.

MG addressed the Hearing Panel, stating that they were unaware their insurance had been cancelled. The IN10 conviction was due to driving on the same road too many times and the insurance policy being subsequently cancelled.

In questions from the Licensing Unit, MG acknowledged that they had been using their vehicle for work purposes which they were not insured for. This was the reason for their insurance being cancelled. When stopped, their vehicle was seized. The TT99 conviction occurred when MG received 6 penalty points and had a new licence.

In questions from the panel, MG stated that they had passed their driving test in 2022. They were driving on a provisional licence for work in 2019 when they were disqualified. MG did not have insurance for courier work due to believing the company they worked for had provided it. MG did not realise that insurance did not cover their personal vehicle. MG still worked as a courier and rented a van that was insured for those purposes.

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

MG summed up by stating that they were not aware of the insurance issues.

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 did not agree that the explanations put forward by MG were satisfactory. The panel agreed that MG was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The panel acknowledged that the convictions were within the guidelines and saw no reason to depart from them.

Decision

To refuse 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 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 stated that AMR had indicated yes to traffic convictions on their renewal application but had failed to provide any details. It was later seen on AMR’s DVLA Summary that the conviction was an IN10 – using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks. The Licensing Unit had not been notified of the conviction until the renewal application.

AMR addressed the Hearing Panel, stating that their car had been in the garage for two days at which point their insurance had expired. They then drove the vehicle to the Licensing Unit test centre, but their insurance was not sent to the Licensing Unit on-time. AMR received 6 points for the offence.

In questions from the Licensing Unit officer, AMR stated that their car had been in the garage for repair, and they then drove to the test centre. AMR had not received the letter offering a fixed penalty for the offence due to being out of the country. The matter subsequently went to court and AMR was still out of the country.

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

AMR summed up that they had been driving for a long time and this was the first time something such as this had happened.

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 AMR was a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The panel were satisfied with the explanation provided by AMR.

Decision

To grant the renewal of the Private Hire Driver Licence with a warning 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 informed the panel that this was an application for a new private hire driver licence. SAAB had declared a TT99 ‘totting up’ conviction on their application. The disqualification was within the guidelines.

SAAB addressed the Hearing Panel, stating that they had changed the address of their driving licence when moving home but not of the car. They thought the letter for the speeding offence had been sent to their previous address and had only found out about it when the letter from the DVLA regarding disqualification was sent to them.

In questions from the Licensing Unit officer and the panel, SAAB stated that they had changed the address of their driving licence but had forgot to update their logbook. The address had now been changed.

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

SAAB summed up that they had worked in the NHS for several years but due to a change in circumstances, they required a job with flexibility in the hours.

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 provided by SAAB for the conviction. The panel agreed that SAAB was a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

Decision

To grant the application for a new Private Hire Driver Licence with a warning 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, noting that this was a renewal of a Private Hire Driver Licence as AAC’s had expired in December 2024. The renewal application form informed the Licensing Unit of a CD10 conviction that attracted 5 penalty points which was a major traffic offence. It was a month after the conviction that AAC informed the Licensing Unit, and they had been warned regarding non-notification before. 

AAC acknowledged they had forgot to tell the Licensing Unit. They had been given two options for the conviction which was to attend a course and pay a fine or take penalty points. AAC had financial issues and could not pay the fine immediately so requested an extension. The extension was not granted, and the matter went to court where the penalty was increased from 3 to 5 points.

In questions from the Licensing Unit officer, AAC noted that the incident involved them taking a U-turn and not having seen an oncoming motorbike which led to an accident. The course would have been £170. AAC knew about the court hearing and provided a written statement to them. AAC plead guilty.

In questions from the panel, AAC stated that they accepted their mistake of not informing the Licensing Unit. The course offered was related to careless driving.

The Licensing Unit officer summed up by stating that there now appeared to be 11 penalty points accrued on AAC’s licence. The Licensing Unit officer accepted that AAC had eventually informed them of the conviction, even if late.

AAC summed up that they 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 AAC for not informing the Licensing Unit straight away. The panel were satisfied that AAC did eventually inform the Unit, even if slightly late. The panel were satisfied that AAC was a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

Decision

To grant the renewal 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 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, noting that this was a renewal application. On the application, AQK declared a traffic conviction but did not provide further details. A DVLA summary showed a CU80 conviction – mobile phone use – which attracted 6 penalty points and was a major traffic offence. AQK had not informed the Licensing Unit until their application was submitted.

AQK addressed the Hearing Panel, informing them that they thought they could notify the Unit at the time of their renewal. They were using the navigation on their phone at the time and was caught by a police officer.

In questions from the Licensing Unit officer, AQK stated that they were driving their private vehicle at the time, not their Hackney Carraige. They were stopped leaving the junction of a motorway and received a fixed penalty. AQK did not have to attend court. The phone was in AQK’s hand at the time.

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

AQK summed up by stating that they would be more careful in the future.

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 explanation provided by AQK. The panel were satisfied that AQK was a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The panel took note of there being no traffic convictions on AQK’s record for nine years.

Decision

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

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

The Hearing Panel were informed that UBI was out of the country and could not attend the hearing. The Hearing Panel were willing to defer the hearing to a later date to allow for UBI to attend.

Decision

To defer to a future date.

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. NM had convictions for serious physical and verbal assault which happened in 2017 on the same day. The convictions were outside the guidelines. There was also a conviction for failing to surrender to custody, with the offence date in 2018 and conviction date in 2023. NM had provided some details regarding the convictions but not all.

NM addressed the Hearing Panel, noting that the convictions were in 2017 and were in their past. The issues were domestic, and NM had been back with their family for around a year and a half. NM stated that there was no proof of the allegations put forward by their partner, but they were still convicted.

The Chair noted that the report stated that NM had plead guilty. NM stated that they had plead guilty to the failure to surrender conviction. Their partner had made other allegations of serious sexual assault which NM said they were not guilty of but was what the police wanted to question them regarding. After their period of imprisonment, NM left the country in 2018 which was why they were convicted of failing to surrender. NM’s family assisted in helping their marriage. When NM returned to the country in 2023, they were arrested for their failure to surrender. NM stated their belief that their partner not pursuing the allegations made it clear they were untrue. NM was trying to move on.

In questions from the Licensing Unit officer, NM stated they had plead not guilty to the physical and verbal assault allegations that they were convicted of. NM did not accept the verdicts. NM left the country in November 2018 knowing that they were required to surrender to custody.

In questions from the panel, NM stated that they were advised by a solicitor, not the solicitor who represented them in court, to leave the country rather than surrender to custody. NM stated they did what they thought was right at the time and what they were advised. NM said they were not guilty of the offences but due to their previous convictions, felt that this decision would also go against them. NM had been unable to find a job since returning to the country due to their convictions. They had previously been in a taxi driver in a different authority.

The Licensing Unit officer summed up by stating that NM had not declared their previous Licence with a different authority. This was a question asked as part of the application and NM had stated they had not previously held a Licence. This knowledge would have allowed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 144.

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. TA attended with the support of a friend. 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 an application for a new Private Hire Driver Licence. On the application, TA answered no to Have you any spent or unspent criminal or traffic convictions? and ‘Have you been cautioned by the Police for any reason’. TA answered the same on their statutory declaration. TA’s DBS then showed convictions related to drink driving from 2017. This conviction was still within the guidelines and TA had not declared this.

TA addressed the Hearing Panel, stating that they had assumed they only needed to declare any convictions within the last five years. They stated that they previously had a drinking problem, but they were now past this and no longer drank.

In questions from the Licensing Unit officer, TA stated that they had assumed the question only referred to the last five years. TA stated that they no longer drank alcohol or took drugs. Their conviction relating to an assault was a family incident. TA noted that their licence was now clean, and they had changed.

In questions from the panel, TA stated it was a mistake to not declare their convictions. They resolved their drug and alcohol problems with family support.

The Licensing Unit officer summed up by stating that there were two incidents from the same year relating to drink driving. TA’s licence was only restored in August 2023.

TA’s friend summed up on their behalf, stating they had known TA for several years. TA had previously had a problem with alcohol but that was no longer the case.

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 the convictions were still within the guidelines. However, they were willing to depart from the guidelines as they noted the convictions were historical and accepted that TA had changed. The panel were satisfied that TA was a fit and proper person to hold a Licence.

Decision

To grant the Private Hire Driver Licence with a warning 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. AM attended with the support of a trade representative. 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 an application for a new Private Hire Driver Licence. AM had answered no to ‘Have you any spent or unspent criminal or traffic convictions?’ on their application and on their statutory declaration had answered on to ‘Do you have any traffic offences that are pending, or you have been convicted of?’. AM’s DVLA Summary showed the Licensing Unit that they had a conviction for an SP30 which attracted six penalty points. The conviction was within the guidelines.

AM addressed the Hearing Panel and stated that they were unaware of this conviction when they applied. They had never been notified of the SP30. AM’s trade representative stated that AM had bought their vehicle before the application. They had nothing on their licence when taking out insurance. AM had submitted a statutory declaration to court and the trade representative had told AM to inform the Licensing Unit of the outcome as soon as it was received.

In questions from the Licensing Unit officer, AM stated that they were unaware of what the offence was. They had submitted their statutory declaration a week prior to this hearing.

In questions from the panel, AM stated that they bought their vehicle in May 2024. They had not received anything in the post regarding this conviction.

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

AM’s trade representative summed up by stating that there had been no attempt to hide anything as AM had no awareness of the conviction.

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 that AM had not attempted to conceal the conviction from the Licensing Unit and accepted their explanation that they were unaware of what the conviction was for. The panel were satisfied that AM was a fit and proper person to hold a Licence, and were therefore willing to depart from their guidelines.

Decision

To grant the new Private Hire Driver Licence.