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

Cllr Lynch was replaced on the Committee by Councillor Grimshaw following a declaration of interest and the matter was deferred until 2.30 for Cllr Grimshaw to attend.

The Committee heard the Applicant was currently a Hackney Carriage licenced driver. His renewal application had been submitted but he had answered ‘No’ to all questions re previous convictions.

A DBS check showed the following convictions: -

2.6.15: a conviction for common assault;

15.8.17:           Conviction for MS90 – Failing to provide driver information

The renewal application was dated 7.3.16 and therefore these matters fell within policy guidelines hence the appearance before the Committee.

The Applicant was not legally represented. He explained he was wrong not to report the conviction for Common Assault but had been scared when he had seen the term, “battery” and fearful of losing his licence. It was all he had known for forty years i.e. being a taxi driver.

He explained the allegation of assault had never happened. It was a false allegation. He accepted he had been present at the scene and had, had an exchange with the other driver. The Applicant had been in a van at the time, had seen a fellow taxi driver blocking the road as his vehicle appeared to have been in an accident and went to help him. He stated the other driver had become aggressive and come at him with jump leads. He had put his hands up to protect himself but no blows were struck. The police were not called to the scene but they had come and arrested him two weeks later. He gave a full account to them.

In relation to the MS90 offence, he explained he had no knowledge of it. He had worked a tracker cab. The owner got notification of a speeding but hadn’t notified him. He had left the track due to poor maintenance of the vehicle. The Operator was very bitter about it and the only time he was aware of the points and conviction was when he received a letter from the bailiff for £1,000. Had he received any notification he would have paid the fine and taken the three points instead of six. He also stated as it was 45 mph in a 40 mph limit, he would probably have been offered a speed awareness course and he would have done that.

Regardless of the explanation given by the Applicant, the Committee could not go behind the

conviction. They did however note the Applicant had been a taxi driver for forty years without

complaint. He had explained his actions to the Committee and apologised. The Committee was of the opinion the assault conviction was an isolated incident and the account provided regarding the MS90 conviction was significantly mitigated. The Applicant had been suspended for four weeks and they therefore believed there had already been a punitive element, there were grounds to depart  from the policy and grant the Application with a Warning to be recorded.

Decision

To grant the renewal with a warning as to the future conduct of the driver.