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

The Hearing Panel considered the content of the report and the written and oral representations made by the Licensing Unit officer and MI.

The Licensing Unit officer addressed the Hearing Panel and stated that the unit had been informed by MI’s operator on 7 September 2022 of a complaint from a female passenger. The unit had made enquiries and details were shared of the complaint whereby a female passenger stated that MI had made inappropriate comments to her regarding how beautiful she was and that spoke of wanting a partner like her. This made the passenger feel extremely uncomfortable for the duration of the journey and she expressed that MI shouldn’t be speaking to lone female passengers in this way. MI was contacted about the incident and denied that this conversation occurred and added no further information. This triggered a warning letter to be sent to MI. In January 2023, another complaint of a matching nature came from the operator, the female passenger was contacted who confirmed the details in the report. The female passenger requested that this driver was not sent to her again. Following this, the unit requested further historical incidents from the operator and found one other to be of a similar nature.

MI asked the officer about the complaints and the Licensing Unit officer stated that they were all in the report and had MI seen a copy. MI confirmed that they had a copy of the report, adding that the email address provided for the unit to contact MI on was their daughter’s and that they had not received any phone call about the incidents.

MI then addressed the Hearing Panel and stated that they recalled the first incident as MI had assisted the passenger with bags. MI stated that they had just talked politely about work and family matters.

The Licensing Unit officer read the first female passenger’s statement to MI and asked if he recalled any of the conversation. MI again stated that they had exchanged polite talk, adding that they know it is not appropriate to discuss things mentioned in the passenger’s report.

The Legal adviser to the Hearing Panel asked MI if they had read and understood the report papers for the hearing and MI confirmed that their partner had read them to MI.

The Licensing Unit officer confirmed the email address with MI who confirmed that this is the email address they had provided to the unit. MI said that it was possible that their daughter had missed the email with the warning letter attached and therefore not informed him.

The Licensing Unit officer asked if MI felt that it was their responsibility to make sure they have access to correspondence and MI replied saying it was their daughter’s mistake.

Ml confirmed the daughter to be 23 years of age.

The Licensing Unit officer then read the statement from the second female passenger, stated that MI had provided no response and asked if MI recalled this incident.

MI again stated that they would not speak this way with a passenger.

When asked if the 2 complaints were of concern, MI stated that they thought they would be called in for an appointment.

The Hearing Panel asked MI if their operator had restricted all current work and MI confirmed this.

In their deliberations the Hearing Panel felt that the pattern of complaints could not be ignored, especially noting the similarities between them, and considered that MI was not a fit and proper person to be transporting passengers. The Hearing Panel noted paragraph 14 of the policy and guidelines regarding conduct and statutory guidance regarding the safeguarding of the public in making their decision.

Decision

To revoke MI’s licence with immediate effect on grounds of public safety.