Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any personal interest in respect of matters contained in this agenda. If the interest arises only as result of your membership of another public body or one to which you have been appointed by the Council then you only need to declare it if you intend to speak.

If the personal interest is a prejudicial interest, you must withdraw from the meeting. Normally you should leave the room before the business starts to be discussed. You do, however, have the same right to speak as a member of the public and may remain in the room to enable you to exercise that right and then leave immediately. In either case you must not seek to improperly influence a decision on the matter.

There were no declarations of interest.

To consider the exclusion of the press and public for the following items of business on the ground that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

RESOLVED – That the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

To consider the report from the Director of People and Places, which had been deferred from the last meeting of the Sub-Committee on 3 November 2010 (enclosed 1-26).

Since the agenda for the last meeting was published, new information has come forward and Members of the Sub-Committee have been asked to consider an additional report which provides details of this information (enclosed pages 27-29)

Request for an adjournment of the hearing

The Sub-Committee were informed of a request from the Operator for an adjournment of the Sub-Committee hearing for two weeks for personal reasons and to allow him to prepare his case.

Members of the Sub-Committee considered the Operator’s request in great detail.  Members noted that the Sub-Committee had been adjourned once on 3 November 2010 to accommodate the Operator. Members further noted that the relevant statutory timetable for circulating the agenda and reports had been complied with.  Members also noted that the Operator had been aware of the allegations against him for some time due the investigations being conducted by the Council’s Public Protection Officers even before the Sub-Committee which adjourned on 3 November 2010 was arranged.

Members considered that their responsibility to the citizens of the borough meant that consideration of serious allegations in the report could not continue to be deferred. Members were also mindful of the cost to the Council Taxpayers and officer time required for each committee hearing.

After careful consideration the Sub-Committee subsequently RESOLVED – To continue with the hearing by a 4-1 majority.

There was a short adjournment to allow the Public Protection Officer to contact the Operator and invite him to make representations at the hearing.  The Operator was unable to attend due to a prior appointment.

Sub-Committee Hearing

The Public Protection Officer presented a report by the Director of People and Places which detailed a number of complaints regarding a Private Hire Company which led the Officer to believe that the Operator had breached his Operator Licence conditions and committed offences under the provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. 

Members of the Sub-Committee gave careful consideration to the representations from the Public Protection Officer, the witness statements included within the report, the Council’s conditions attached to a Private Hire Operator Licence, and Sections 56 and 62 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

The Sub-Committee unanimously RESOLVED – To revoke the Operator’s Licence under Section 62(1)(b) and Section 62 (1)(d) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 for the following reasons:

1. Members were satisfied from the Public Protection Officer’s report that pre-booked journeys had been undertaken without adequate records being maintained by the operator as required as a condition of his Operator’s licence. The Sub-Committee noted that the Operator had failed to explain the absence of written records.

2. The Operator had admitted in interview running the firm from his home address outside the Borough of Chorley which was not permitted by his licence from the Council. Members also noted that a driver connected to the firm gave similar evidence that the firm was run for part of the time from outside Chorley.

3. The Operator had failed to demonstrate any improvement in his record keeping despite a formal warning from the Council on 19 July 2010.

4. The Operator had admitted in interview driving a private hire vehicle where he did not possess a driver licence issued by the Council.  Members did  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.