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

The Hearing Panel considered the report from the Headof Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the above application. The written papers and oral representations of the parties who attended were also considered, as well as the relevant guidance. The matter was considered in line with the established procedure for taxi licensing.

The Licensing Unit officer stated that AM had a conviction for obstructing a Food Safety & Hygiene inspection. AM was imprisoned for 6 months and suspended for 24 months. The Licensing Unit were not immediately informed of this. On discovering this information the Unit ran further checks and found other convictions on AM’s record. AM was contacted to state that they need to inform the Licensing Unit in future.

AM’s appointed representative, Mr Kaufman, confirmed that there had been 1 failed disclosure regarding the aforementioned obstruction and fully accepted this. AM relied on others to assist on completing all manner of official forms but accepts that this is their responsibility. AM stated that they had worked as waiting on at a restaurant and officers had entered to do the inspection and enquired on ingredients in the food on sale. AM expressed that they were not aware and this is their version of the events. AM gave a guilty plea and did not try to go behind the conviction. AM played a minor role in this conviction and the officials did not accept that they knew as little as they had claimed. There were no other offences to consider – AM had paid a surcharge, had 9 penalty points on their licence, 3 of which elapsed in May 2024 with the other 6 expiring in the February and October following. All these were speeding incidents. AM has an otherwise satisfactory record. There were no behavioural issues for the panel to consider and, had the matter been disclosed, the panel may have had some hesitation in granting the licence. Regarding the ABH noted at paragraph 3.5 of the report, AM denies this, states it was in self-defence and that there was no charge brought against them. This incident was 8 years ago. AM was deemed to be fit and proper to hold a licence in all other respects and was a sober, mentally & physically sound driver. AM was very sorry for the incident and if any action were to be taken against them then perhaps a suspension would be most fitting.

In responding to questions from the Licensing Unit Officer and the Panel, AM stated that the inspector was present when the manager was not,  there was no other information to give regarding the guilty plea, there was no physical obstruction, they were first licensed in 2012, their spouse had sometimes assisted in completing form, that they were aware that this was their responsibility, that they had completed 2 forms in the past, there was a licence application with another LA, this was because other friends had also applied for this area and that they would prefer to work in Manchester as this is their home city.

In summing up, the Licensing Unit Officer stated that AM should know to disclose information having had traffic conviction in previous years.

Mr Kaufman summed up for AM by stating that, if there had been any misunderstandings in the past, they were cleared up now and AM would always inform the City Council of any issues.

In their deliberations, the Hearing Panel were concerned about the offence and subsequent imprisonment and considered that there was more than likely more to the story. The Hearing Panel had regard for the historical nature of the incident within a different trade but noted other incidents on their record and determined that there should be some penalty handed down to remind AM that they have a duty to inform the Licensing Unit in future of any convictions etc.

Decision

To impose a 21 day suspension on AM’s licence.