Issue - meetings

Report of the Director of Customer and Digital.

The Director of Customer and Digital submitted a report for the General Licensing Sub-Committee to determine whether the Licence Holder remained a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

The Licence Holder was present at the Sub-Committee.

The Licensing Officer outlined his report, highlighting that Chorley Council received a statement of complaint on the 6 June 2019 stating that the Licence Holder refused to take a passenger with an assistance dog on Saturday, 6 April 2019. The taxi was booked by a member of staff from Chorley Hospital Emergency Department on behalf of the passenger.

There were a number of appendices submitted as audio recordings; the Licensing Sub-Committee proceeded to listen to those recordings which involved the booking being discussed, the booking being taken, the discussion between the Licence Holder and Operator after the driver had arrived for pick up, and a conversation between the Operator and the person making the booking on behalf of the passenger.

The Licensing Officer also reported that, on the 12 October 2011, the Licence Holder attended a General Licensing Sub Committee as his licence renewal application revealed that the Licence Holder had received a Police Caution, which had not been declared to Chorley Council in accordance with the conditions of his licenses. It was noted that at that meeting, the Sub-Committee had resolved to take no action as a result of this.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, the Licensing Officer confirmed that, although not specifically part of the application process, the requirement to transport assistance dogs was clearly set out as a condition on the private hire drivers’ licence. The Licensing Officer confirmed that the dog was clearly marked as an assistance dog and paperwork confirming this status had subsequently been produced. The Sub-Committee noted that the Licence Holder had attended Safeguarding training with the Council; the Licensing Officer confirmed that this training did not specifically cover assistance dogs but focussed on safeguarding of vulnerable people. In response to further questioning, the Sub-Committee noted that the Licence Holder was aware that the passenger was accompanied by an assistance dog when he accepted the booking.

The Licence Holder advised that, upon his arrival, the passenger was waiting outside with her assistance dog. The dog made a mess and he waited while it was cleaned up. The Licence Holder advised that he asked the passenger to sit in the back of the vehicle as it would be more comfortable for her. He stated that he did not refuse to take her but instead that the passenger refused to travel with him, despite him saying twice that she could sit wherever she wanted in the vehicle. The Licence Holder advised the Sub-Committee that the passenger had not made this complaint but that a third party had made the complaint a long time after the incident.

In clarification, the Sub-Committee noted that the complaint had been made by a receptionist at the hospital who made the booking on behalf of the passenger, and that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24