To receive and consider the report of the Director of Planning and Property.
Minutes:
The Sub Committee considered a further application for determination of an application to renew a Hackney Carriage Vehicle Proprietor’s Licence.
The Licence holder was present. Mr Chaz Malik from the Chorley Taxi Association was also present representing the Licence holder.
The Sub Committee accepted a request from the Licence holder to circulate additional documentation.
The Licensing Officer was present at the hearing and presented a report of the Director of Planning and Property advising that grounds for referral to the Committee were that the Licence holder had presented the vehicle for a test in a dangerous condition which may have called into question his ability to adequately maintain the vehicle during the currency of the licence.
The Licensing Officer advised the Sub Committee that the Licence holder had been the proprietor of the licence for many years with records appearing to specify him as the licence holder from 2011. The Licensing Officer further advised that at the current time, the vehicle associated with this licence was a Peugeot E7 Expert in red. The licence hadcontinued to be renewed in the usual way and applied to the vehicle until July2023, when it had been brought to the attention of officers, due to the poorcondition that it was in.
It was reported that the vehicle had presented for an MOT and Taxi Test at a Council-authorised garage in July 2023. The vehicle had failed the taxi test element due to a large part of the sill around the door opening being significantly rusted, allowing the tester to push his finger through the corroded metal.
It was reported that the Licence holder had removed the vehicle to enable repairs to be carried out. It was furtherreported that, again, the repairs that had been carried out were of such poor quality that the tester was able to push his finger through the corroded metal. The tester had then contacted the Council, and officers had attended to conduct an inspection of the vehicle.
As a result of the inspection, the decision had been made to suspend the licence with immediate effect and a Section 68 Suspension Notice had been issued. A copy of the
suspension notice was appended to the report at appendix 1. The Sub-Committee was advised that it had been noted at the time that the faults identified would have been clear to a person without any mechanical training and without any specialist knowledge. The Licence holder had provided correspondence to the Council, a copy of which was appended to the report at appendix 2.
The Licence holder had presented the vehicle for an inspection by Council Officers in August 2023 and the suspension had been lifted, with the faults identified in the suspension notice having been rectified. The vehicle had then been submitted for a test at an authorised garage and had failed the inspection. The Licence holder was informed that his application to renew his licence was to be referred to the General Licensing Sub Committee due to concerns surrounding the vehicle. The Licence holder decided to withdraw his application and had been provided with 30 days to submit a new application. The email thread relating to this was appended to the report at appendix 3.
A full MOT history of the new Hackney Carriage Licence was appended to the report at appendix 4 for further reference.
The Sub Committee was advised that the Licence holder had presented the new vehicle for an initial inspection in August 2023. It had been noted during this inspection that the vehicle’s mileage was close to 400,000 miles. The Sub Committee
noted that the vehicle was well maintained and had often passed its MOT without any faults being identified. Despite the high mileage, the vehicle had passed the inspection and had been licensed in August 2024. It had also passed the Council’s MOT and taxi test without any faults being identified.
The Licensing Officer reported that in February 2024, the Licence had become due for renewal and the Licence holder had arranged for it to be inspected at one of the Council’s approved garages. It was reported that on the first inspection of the vehicle, since the vehicle had been operated by the Licence holder, 8 advisories had been identified, most of whichwould be identifiable without specialist equipment or training. The vehicle hadhowever passed and was granted another licence, which had been due to expire in August 2024.
The Licensing Officer reported that on 15 August 2024, the Licence holder had submitted the vehicle for an MOT and taxi test at a Council approved garage. The vehicle had failed both tests. Details of faults identified were outlined to the Sub Committee. The Sub Committee was advised that an MOT was the basic minimum standard that a vehicle must pass to be permitted on the road.
The Licensing Officer further reported that despite a dangerous fault being identified, the vehicle was driven away from the garage. When it had been re-tested, 4 days later, there were an additional 150 additional miles on the clock. Due to this, officers had carried out enquiries and established that, at a minimum, the vehicle had been seen to be standing for hire on the High Street rank on Saturday, 17 August between 22:49 hours and 23:30 hours and again between 23.31 hours and 23:56 hours. This was despite a dangerous fault identified and the vehicle had not been subsequently retested until 19 August.
The Chair invited Mr Malik and the Licence holder to make representations to the Sub-Committee regarding the Licence holder’s fitness to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage Vehicle Proprietor’s Licence.
Mr Malik advised the Sub Committee that the Licence holder had been a driver for 40 years.
Mr Malik referred to when the first vehicle had been suspended and that the Licence holder had purchased a replacement vehicle. Mr Malik then referred to the suspension of the second vehicle and that the Licence holder had withdrawn the vehicle because he was aware of the advice from the garage that had undertaken the inspection. Mr Malik also referred to the additional documentation that had been circulated to the Sub Committee, page 1 advising “Do not drive until repaired”.
Mr Malik further referred to the remainder of the documentation which evidenced that outstanding repairs had been carried out at an MOT approved garage and that the Licence holder had visited a specialist to carry out the necessary repairs. Mr Malik advised that Licence holder had mistakenly been under the impression that because the repairs had been carried out, he was permitted to drive the vehicle and was not aware that it would require further inspection.
Mr Malik advised the Sub Committee that the Licence holder was not mechanically minded, that this had been a genuine unintentional mistake and that he was very remorseful. The Licence holder confirmed that he now understood the policy and that he should not have driven the vehicle until a further inspection had been carried out by a Council approved test centre. The Licence holder apologised stating that this had been a mistake.
Mr Gazra, Mr Malik, and the Licence holder then the left the room whilst the Sub-Committee entered its deliberations in private.
Decision
The Sub Committee?determined?that the Licence holder?did meet the requirements of?a “fit and proper person”?and as such the Licence holder’s?Hackney Carriage Vehicle Proprietors Licence?was renewed subject to a formal warning being issued as to the Licence Holder’s future conduct due to him not complying with the policy in relation to his vehicle failing the Taxi and MOT test.
Members recognised that the Licence Holder had corrected the faults with the vehicle and that he was remorseful.