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 MS who attended with their trade union representative.

The Licensing Unit officer addressed the Hearing Panel, noting this was a further review following MS’s suspension that was upheld by a previous Hearing Panel. Allegations had been made regarding MS when completing a Home to School contract journey. GMP had since concluded their investigation, with the outcome no further action due to insufficient evidence.

MS’s trade union representative addressed the panel noting that MS has cooperated with GMP and the Licensing Unit. They noted that MS had given their phone to GMP for forensic analysis and accepted that no further action was taken due to insufficient evidence.

Under questioning from the Licensing Unit officer, MS stated they did not agree with the allegations and that they had not asked for the customer phone number, but they had asked for theirs. MS noted the original journey was booked so they thought they were allowed to take them on the extended journey request later. MS stated that they had stopped at the shop as the passenger requested to. The Licensing Unit officer stated that MS was contracted to take the passenger from school to home and not make stops, but MS reiterated that they would always stop at the shop at the request of a customer. MS stated they did not offer the customer drugs or cigarettes as suggested. The Licensing Unit officer noted that the additional journey requested would have been ply for hire which was illegal. MS accepted that but did not think it was at the time. The Licensing Unit officer questioned if MS contacted the customer after exchanging phone numbers, to which MS answered they had not. The Licensing Unit officer noted additional information they had provided from GMP that showed there was contact. MS stated that GMP had not found anything on their phone, but that messages had been exchanged then the customer rang MS. The Licensing Unit officer noted that MS made the first contact, which MS then accepted and stated they were contacting the customer to complete the additional journey. The Licensing Unit officer questioned if MS often exchanged phone numbers with 15-year-old customers. MS stated it was a mistake.

The panel questioned why MS had contacted the customer the next day, as per the information provided by GMP. MS did not know. MS did not wait at the customers home for the additional journey but waited in a nearby car park.

The Licensing Unit officer summed up by noting the information from GMP which stated that MS had denied any contact with the customer, yet messages showed contact had been made and MS had admitted to a phone call.

MS summed up by stating that GMP had stated there would be no further action and they accepted their mistake.

In their deliberations, the panel accepted that the behaviour displayed by MS was unacceptable towards a vulnerable child. The panel noted the information supplied by GMP that showed messages being exchanged between the customer and MS. The panel noted that MS initiated that contact. By their reporting of the incident, it was clear the passenger was concerned regarding the behaviour of MS. The panel accepted that MS was not a fit and proper person to hold a license.

Decision

To revoke the Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Driver Licences.