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 KA.

The Licensing Unit officer addressed the Hearing Panel, stating that KA had a customer complaint regarding honesty and conduct. KA had collected a passenger in Manchester City Centre who drunkenly asked to go home and gave their London postcode. KA asked for £666 (which the Licensing Officer confirmed was a fair price for this journey). After some time the passenger realised their mistake and requested to go to their hotel in Manchester. KA returned to Manchester with the passenger who had already paid the fare up-front. The Licensing Officer claimed that there had been no offer of a refund to the passenger who submitted a complaint 4 weeks later. A Licensing Officer had spoken with KA who stated that they had got as far as Wolverhampton when the passenger realised they were not going to their hotel. It was considered that KA could not have driven this far south in a 1-1 and a half hour round trip. In the end, £566 was refunded to the passenger and KA kept the rest for mileage and a cleaning charge as the passenger had vomited in the cab. KA had an otherwise clean driving history.

KA stated that they had spoken to a Licensing Unit officer and resolved the matter and refunded the passenger and that there were no further issues at that time.

The Licensing Unit officer stated that the incident dated back to 2022 and the officer processing the matter was not available for some time and so it went unattended and was being presented to the Hearing Panel later than it should have been.

KA addressed the Hearing Panel and stated that they had collected the passenger and asked if they were sure when they gave the postcode for KA to travel to. The passenger agreed and paid the fare up front and became queasy before too long. KA pulled off the motorway for the passenger to get out and vomit but he had already made a small mess in the cab. KA then asked if he was ready to continue and asked where he was going and the passenger confirmed that they wanted to continue to London. After a short time the passenger asked to come off the motorway and KA stated that this was the Nantwich & Crewe exit. The passenger then asked to continue the journey again but KA said to think about it. Around the area of Stoke-on-Trent, the passenger felt sick again so KA stopped for 5/10 minutes before going to a garage for water and to clean the cab in the Knutsford area. The passenger then stated that they wanted to return to Manchester to the Travelodge Hotel on the main road. KA drove to the Ancoats Travelodge and dropped the passenger stating that they owed them money for the incomplete journey. The passenger said that they didn’t care about the money and KA stated that CCTV from the hotel would show the cab waiting for 15 minutes to allow the passenger to return. The passenger did not return. KA then expressed that he had been going through a period of stress in their personal life due to their son’s operation and bereavement from other family members and hadn’t been thinking straight. The next day KA realised that he owed money to the passenger but could offer no refund without their card.

In responding to questions from the Licensing Unit officer and the Hearing Panel, KA stated that they had not contacted the Licensing Unit about the incident due to not thinking straight at the time, the journey was longer than on the printed report at 2 hours minimum, KA had stated that the journey got as far as Wolverhampton by accident due to not thinking straight and that they have autism and mix up their words sometimes, confirmed that they got as far as Crewe and that he gave the customer a refund.

In summing up, the Licensing Officer stated that KA had taken a large sum from a drunken customer and raised concern over the period of time elapsed before any news came through to the Licensing Unit, calling KA’s openness and honesty into question on the matter as they had not made any attempt to rectify the situation.

KA summed up by stating that they had not spent the money earned from the fare, that a Licensing officer calculated the amount and KA was prepared to give a full refund but could not contact the customer directly.

In their deliberations, the Hearing Panel considered that, although KA had not contacted the Unit to address the matter, they had gone through some personal stress and that a large portion of the fare was refunded. KA’s record was otherwise clean and the Hearing Panel felt that a warning should be attached to the Licence as to future conduct now that KA knew to contact the Unit for any other matters.

Decision

To issue a warning as to future conduct.