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

The Committee was advised that the Applicant held a Private Hire Driver’s Licence and had applied for a Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licence.

He had notified the Authority of convictions on the 1^st of March 2019.

As a result of this, the Licensing Unit had spoken with Club Cars who in turn had notified the officers of three complaints: -

26.6.18:           Inappropriate comments made to a passenger;

28.12.19:         Intrusive and odd comments to a female passenger and had been watching a violent video;

21.3.19:           Complaint by a 15 year old female re inappropriate comments following which Club Cars had released the Applicant from their books and he had attended at the girls address and remained there for twenty minutes asking why they had reported him and asking them to change their story.

On the 21^st of March 2019, the Authority had suspended his licence with immediate effect.

The Committee was advised Applicant also holds a licence with Trafford and when stopped illegally plying for hire in Liverpool he was driving a Trafford licence.

Applicant, via his legal representative explained it was evidence he had picked up passengers 0240 in the morning in Liverpool, Hanover Street and taken to destination requested. The Applicant has a number of friends licensed by Liverpool. One of his friends rang him asking him to come and assist him as he had broken down and need his help. This friend, like the Applicant are from Oldham. The intention was to take him back. Applicant went to destination, Hanover Street, one of the main thoroughfares to Liverpool City Centre. He was waiting for his friend, had been there for about an hour and as his back was hurting got out of the vehicle to have a smoke. At the time, his windows had been closed. He got back into his vehicle, didn’t lock the doors and opened the windows for fresh air. A male and female then came to the car, they were aggressive and threw money into the vehicle telling him to take them to the destination.

He didn’t tell them to get out due to fear as a result of an incident that had happened some nine days previously when he had been attacked and robbed by a passenger and sustained stab wounds to his left shoulder, (documentation by way of photographs and hospital correspondence was provided). The Applicant had felt scared and felt intimidated and believed it was in his interests to do as he was told. He did not go to Liverpool with any intention of illegally plying for hire.

He had attended at Liverpool Magistrates’ Court, pleaded guilty and also presented a ‘Special Reasons’ argument as to why the offence took place. This had not been successful.

He had notified and remained in contact with Local Authority and therefore had not shirked his responsibilities but faced them head on.

In terms of the additional allegations Applicant was not aware of the 26.6.18 allegations and in respect of those on the 28.12.18 he accepted a conversation had taken place but of that conversation was inappropriate; he was asking simple questions. She had asked rhetorical questions. The conversation was inconsequential and not wrong or intrusive.

Despite the Applicant’s legal representative referring to the possibility that it may not have been obvious how young the passenger was, the Applicant confirmed she he knew she was a young girl stating, “She’s a little girl, just trying to make her happy. Because I’m a married man, she like my daughter”.

The Applicant accepted he went to see the girl’s family the following day. He wanted to make an apology. He spoke directly with the Mother who confirmed a complaint had already been made. He left and had no further contact.

Reference was made to correspondence from Club Cars and additional copy provided that was legible and it was highlighted by the Applicant’s legal representative that even after those incidents, Club Cars were still willing to write a reference. If they had any concerns, they were duty bound to notify the Local Authority. These allegations made as an afterthought after what comes to pass after March 2019.

Reference was made to the case of McCool v Rushcliffe Borough Council in respect of the definition of what constituted a ‘Fit and Proper’ person and it was requested that the Applicant be dealt with by way of an alternative sanction as opposed to immediate revocation.

When questioned, the Applicant stated he hadn’t gone directly to where his friend had broken down because his friend didn’t know the post code of where he was so he had waiting for him on Hanover Street. The Committee did not find this explanation credible.

Nor did they find credible that given the proximity of the stabbing incident and the emphasis placed on this, that he would not have been alive to the need for ensuring his personal security.

There was also a complaint by Local Authority Customer Service staff from the 25^th of October 2018 of aggressive conduct which had resulted in and enforcement Officer speaking with the Applicant who apologised. Initially the Applicant stated he did not remember the incident. He then stated it may have been the first time he obtained his licence but was being sent to different departments and became frustrated.

In respect of the incident on the 28^th of December, he disputed watching a violent video and stated the female had been on, “weed and stuff”.

The Committee did not accept the Applicant’s account regarding the illegally plying for hire; he had pleaded guilty on the full facts at court, Special Reasons had not been found and the Committee could not go behind that conviction.

Did not attach weight to the public order incident due to its historic nature

The Committee was extremely concerned regarding the number of complaints regarding inappropriate comments and conversations with females on the 26^th of June 2018, 28^th of December 2018 and the 21^st of March 2019, one of which was with a young vulnerable female. They found a concerning ‘course of conduct’ which coupled with the aggressive conduct towards member of the Authority’s staff and the convictions for illegally Plying for Hire, they deemed the Applicant was not deemed to be a fit & proper person to hold a licence.

They applied the Policy and Statement of Guidelines, noting the main provisions were the protection of the public.

Decision

To revoke the Private Hire Driver Licence and to refuse to grant the Hackney Carriage Driver Licence.