Agenda item
Review of a Hackney Carriage Driver Licence - ZH
The report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.
Minutes:
The Hearing Panel considered the report from the Head of Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding the above application. The oral representations of all of the parties who attended were also considered, in conjunction with the relevant guidance. The matter was considered in line with the established procedure for taxi licensing hearings. ZH attended the hearing with his brother-in-law, trade representative and legal representative.
The Licensing Unit officer informed the Hearing Panel that this was a review of a Hackney Carriage Driver Licence. ZH had been convicted of an IN10 offence, being uninsured against third party risks and had disclosed the matter on their renewal in April 2024.
ZH’s legal representative addressed the Hearing Panel and noted that Guidelines indicated that a major traffic offence could be considered for a refusal and referred to the quotation which stated that any Hearing Panel “may restore or refuse” and “will normally but not always refuse” an application or review. ZH’s legal representative
Invited the Hearing Panel to consider whether ZH remained a fit and proper person, or a “safe and suitable person,” as per the McCool case law. ZH’s legal representative handed out a bundle containing extra information and questioned ZH about the incident which led to ZH giving the responses as follows:
- Taxi driver since 2008
- No other convictions or complaints
- ZH’s vehicle had broken down (referred to in bundle) on Saturday 28 October 2023 and gone to the garage for repairs
- This would normally take 2 weeks to repair
- ZH did not dive any vehicle on 29 October 2023
- ZH was stopped by the police on 30 October 2023 driving his brother-in-law’s vehicle
- This was while driving for a taxi job at the airport
- ZH had arranged with his brother-in-law to use their vehicle and that insurance would be arranged by Monday 30 October 2023 for ZH to use
- ZH’s brother-in-law was in Pakistan seeing to his sick mother at this time
- ZH had not called to check beforehand that the car was insured for them to drive and added that their spouse had been taken ill recently which may have affected his concentration on this matter
- ZH thought the police would inform the Licensing Unit, therefore he had not reported the incident at the time
- ZH had reported it on the renewal in June 2024 as the documentation asked this of him
In response to questions to the Licensing Unit Officer and Hearing Panel, ZH stated that they were now aware to inform the correct authorities of any convictions without delay and that they were not offered a replacement vehicle as the issue was a breakdown and not an accident.
ZH’s legal representative put questions to ZH’s brother-in-law who gave the following responses:
- I meant to have the vehicle insured ready for Monday 30 October 2023 but had to take my sick mother to hospital in Pakistan and forgot
- I was there to look after her for 4 weeks but then extended my stay due to her ongoing condition for another 4 weeks
In response to questions from the Hearing Panel, ZH and their legal representative stated that ZH had put in a guilty plea and that the time difference coupled with the hospital visit complicated the matter and that both ZH and their brother-in-law were both certain of how to deal with the matter in future. ZH had an initial 2 hour wait at the airport and had not taken on any work. ZH knows now that they put themselves in a difficult situation but this was an isolated incident.
ZH’s legal representative concluded their opening statement by referring to the McCool case law, noting that a driver should be safe, sober, mentally and physically fit and not assault passengers and asked how ZH could be considered as not safe under the circumstances of this case. ZH’s legal representative expressed that there was no evidence on the balance of probabilities. It was noted that the hearing today and the expenses of legal representation could be enough of a warning to ZH and that the Hearing Panel could mark a warning on ZH’s record. In closing, ZH’s legal representative requested that the Hearing Panel step away from the guidelines in this instance.
In summing up, ZH’s legal representative stated that he would entrust ZH to drive his loved ones.
The Hearing Panel considered that ZH and their brother-in-law’s cases were open and honest and that the legal representative had done a sufficient job of garnering information from them for the Hearing Panel to be able to make a decision. The Hearing Panel determined that this was an isolated incident, that ZH was a fit and proper person to drive a licensed vehicle and were satisfied that they could attach a warning to ZH’s licence.
Decision
To attach a warning to ZH’s licence as to future conduct.
Supporting documents:
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 78./1 is restricted
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 78./2 is restricted
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 78./3 is restricted