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 Applicant and his representative attended the hearing. The Panel also considered the oral representations all parties who attended, as well as the relevant guidance. The matter was considered in line with the established procedure for taxi licensing hearings.

In reaching a decision the Panel took into consideration their Statement of Policy and Guidelines and Statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards.

The Panel noted that the Applicant had previously held a Private hire vehicle licence which was revoked in August 2023.

The Applicant had been asked to provide a medical certificate which was not provided and as result of his failure to provide the medical certificate his private hire drivers licence was suspended in June 2021. The applicant was stopped by the police in November 2021 driving his licensed vehicle whilst suspended. Following this, a prosecution was issued for plying for hire and no insurance by Manchester City Council. Mr Afzal denied the offences, so a trial took place where he was convicted of the offences. Due to the court imposing 6 penalty points for having no insurance, this resulted in a totting disqualification being imposed due to 6 penalty points already being on the licence for 2 separate speeding offences.

In December 2021 the Licensing Unit received a medical certificate which allowed the Officer to lift the suspension of his hackney carriage driver’s licence.

The Applicant’s representative advised the Panel that Mr Afzal was granted a licence in 2019 when in fact he should not have been, as he had not provided a medical certificate. The Council had deemed him ‘fit and proper’ to hold a licence. The representative stated that during the Covid 19 pandemic period drivers could sign a declaration instead of providing a medical report, but this was not the case for Mr Afzal as his request pre-dated Covid. When he was asked to provide a certificate (in December 2020 and February 2021), he had already been granted a licence. He was asked again to provide a medical certificate one year later whilst in Pakistan but due to the pandemic restrictions at the time, was not able to get back. 

The representative questioned why a prosecution had been bought by the Council and told the Panel that whilst the Applicant had a defence in law, he had been poorly represented at trial. He referred to there being no malice in the matter and it being a simple mistake. He however understood that the Panel could not go behind the conviction but urged them to note that there were no other issues with Applicants record and to move away from the guidelines.

Firstly, the Panel reminded themselves that where an individual had been convicted of a criminal offence they could not review the merits of the conviction (Nottingham City Council v Mohammed Farooq (1998)).The Panel took into consideration the findings of the court, which concluded that the Applicant was aware that he was suspended which resulted in his plying for hire and driving the vehicle without insurance. A serious view is taken of convictions for plying for hire and no insurance as the main purposes of the licensing regime is to ensure the protection of the public.

Secondly, the Panel considered their Statement of Policy and Guidelines with particular reference to the consideration of major traffic offences which states that an application would generally be refused unless a period of 3 years free from conviction had elapsed from the restoration of the DVLA licence, and 5 years where the disqualification related to driving whilst unfit through drink or drugs. The Panel noted that the Applicant’s driving licence was restored in late December 2023, meaning that the offence was well within the guidelines. The Panel understood that they had the discretion to depart from the guidelines, however they concluded that no circumstances or mitigation had been provided to depart from their guidelines.

Thirdly, the Panel reminded themselves of the statutory guidance at Section 5.4 with regard to the Fit and proper test. Which states:

“Licensing authorities have a duty to ensure that any person to whom they grant a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence is a fit and proper person to be a licensee. It may be helpful when considering whether an applicant or licensee is fit and proper to pose oneself the following question:

Without any prejudice, and based on the information before you, would you allow a person for whom you care, regardless of their condition, to travel alone in a vehicle driven by this person at any time of day or night?

If, on the balance of probabilities, the answer to the question is no, the individual should not hold a licence. Licensing authorities have to make difficult decisions but (subject to the General principles) the safeguarding of the public is paramount. All decisions on the suitability of an Applicant or licensee should be made on the balance of probability. This means that an Applicant or licensee should not be given the benefit of doubt. If the Committee or delegated officer is only 50/50 as to whether the Applicant or Licensee is fit and proper, they should not hold a licence. The threshold used here is lower than for a criminal conviction (that being beyond reasonable doubt) and can take into consideration conduct that has not resulted in a criminal conviction.”

Having considered all of the evidence and having applied the relevant tests, the Panel concluded on the balance of probabilities that the Applicant was not a fit and proper person to hold a private hire drivers’ licence. The Panel therefore refused the application.

Decision

To refuse the application for a Private Hire Driver Licence.