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

The Respondent attended and was unrepresented.

The Committee were made aware of the details of 13 complaints made against the Respondent since 2012, four of which had been received within the last two years. It was noted that two of the thirteen complaints had been without merit. The Licensing Representative also accepted that the matters could have been dealt with more promptly.

The Respondent was questioned regarding complaints numbered one, three, five and six and generally about the other complaints.

Complaint No. 1 – he described the passenger as drunk and abusive having told him to ‘Take me to fucking HSBC’ and would not clarify which area he wanted to go to. The Respondent stated he had to get the Marshall at the airport to them but the male continued swearing at him. He disputed the allegation.

Complaint No. 3 – he stated the female was 25/30 years of age and there was an issue as to where he could turn his vehicle around which caused him to drive the opposite direction to the direction of the journey, to enable him to do so. He disputed the allegations of verbal abuse in their entirety.

Complaint No. 5 – The Respondent recalled the incident stating the customer was a builder going to Regent Road and he had wanted to save him time and so had gone via Liverpool Road. When they arrived the customer had given him a twenty pound note which he had held up to the light and checked. The customer had taken offence at this and the Respondent had told him he received false notes several times from the South African community. He said he gave him a receipt and he was gone.

Complaint No. 6 – The Respondent again remembered the journey and disputed the allegations completely. He stated the female was drunk and out of order asking him for a receipt for more than she paid. He confirmed the police had attended at the address in relation to the incident and they had been laughing about it. He disputed any verbal abuse or discussions regarding sexual offences.

The Respondent confirmed he disputed all complaints in their entirety.

The Committee noted there had been a catalogue of complaints from eleven people who did not know each other and with a common theme of aggression and verbal abuse running throughout. The Committee did not find the Respondent’s account credible on the basis of this and the fact that he disputed all matters completely.

The Committee was extremely concerned regarding the incidents concerning females and the particular use of the word ‘Bitch’ and the references to sexual offences.

The Committee also noted the Respondent’s demeanour throughout the proceedings, noting he was constantly interrupting and speaking over the Committee members which was indicative of his attitude. The Committee applied the principles laid down in McCool v Rushcliffe Borough Council 1998 regarding what constitutes a fit and proper person and found the Respondent not to be so.

The Committee therefore revoked the Respondent’s licence and due to their grave concerns regarding his attitude towards members of the public and in particular the female customers, they exercised their powers under s61(2B) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and revoked the licence with immediate effect.

Decision

To revoke the licence with immediate effect.