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

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing which related to an application for a new Private Hire Licence along with the representations made by the Licensing officer and the applicant. The Committee also took into consideration their Statement of Policy and Guidelines.

The Applicant was legally represented by Teneka Omara – JTS Solicitors.  The Committee had been notified of a complaint made by a female customer who had taken a journey on the 16 June 2019 with the Respondent which had been logged as a sexual offence but no further action taken by GMP.  The Committee noted the initial complaint was made to Uber, (not GMP) and that the Complainant could not fully recollect whether ‘anything bad happened’. She had recalled him coming into her apartment, pouring him a drink(s) and that he left at some point and could only say she smelt aftershave on her bed. Mr Shah had returned the next day, (after midnight), looking for his keys and a card, the customer had not let him in to her apartment on this occasion.  Uber had deactivated Mr Shah’s driver account and reported the matter to GMP, however, GMP did not contact the City Council until 6 August 2019, almost two months later.  Miss Omara explained on behalf of the Applicant that he accepted driving the customer and it had been the last job of his shift. She had asked him on a couple of occasions to come to her apartment and had not appeared intoxicated. He was used to dealing with intoxicated people and she did not exhibit those signs. He had gone to her apartment, nothing had happened other than they had talked, he had drunk water and she had been upset regarding another relationship. He had left. He asserted that there had been no sexual activity.  He said that he had been contacted two days later, (on the Tuesday) by Uber, that he had never been formally interviewed by GMP other than a telephone conversation in which he initially denied entering the address but then accepted that he had. He also accepted he had returned to the Complainant’s address as he had lost his bike keys.

The Committee accepted there was no evidence before them of any sexual assault and whereas SDS’s conduct with a customer may not have been appropriate, there was no evidence that anything untoward had occurred. The Committee also noted that GMP had not deemed the matter serious enough to conduct a formal interview under caution but had only discussed the matter over the telephone with him. In addition, GMP had not been contacted by the Complainant, it had in fact been Uber who had reported the matter. Furthermore, it had taken two months for GMP to notify the City Council of the complaint. The Committee also noted SDS had held a licence for seven years without complaint.

The Committee was satisfied that SDS was a fit and proper person to hold a licence but dealt with the matter by way of a warning to be recorded against his licence.

Decision

To allow the Licence to continue and to issue a warning as to the future conduct of the Driver.