Report of the Director of Public Protection, Streetscene and Community.
Minutes:
Councillor Matthew Lynch declared a personal interest and left the meeting for the duration of this item.
The Sub Committee considered a report of the Director of Public Protection, Streetscene and Community to determine whether the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Drivers Licence.
The applicant made an application for a Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Drivers Licence on 4 February 2016. The applicant had previously passed the Council’s Knowledge Test and DSA Private Hire Driver Test Assessment. There were no convictions recorded against the Disclosure and Barring Certificate, the Council’s Group II Medical had been returned with no issues and the applicant held a full DVLA Driver Licence.
The applicant attended the meeting to make representations to the Sub Committee, with his representative, Mr Charles Oakes.
The application identified a conviction for having no insurance where the applicant received six penalty points and a fine of £200. The application did not identify all the motoring offences the applicant had committed and offences which were held on Council records were set out within the report, including speeding endorsements.
The applicant had appeared before the Licensing Sub-Committee on 1 April 2009 to have an application determined. Members granted the applicant a Private Hire Drivers Licence with a warning that should he receive further speeding endorsements then he would be required to appear before the committee.
The Private Hire Drivers Licence was revoked on 14 August 2013 as the applicant had been found by the Police to be acting as Private Hire Vehicle without motor vehicle insurance, as required under Section 50 (4) of the local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, and his vehicle was issued a PG9 statement for an illegal rear tyre.
The applicant advised that at the time his insurance was renewed on a weekly or monthly basis, rather than a contract. He had not realised that his insurance had lapsed. The speeding convictions had occurred when he was working as a delivery driver. He had decided that being a delivery driver wasn’t for him as he felt he was always rushing, and that he would be better suited to being a taxi driver. He had not had any speeding convictions since 2012.
The applicant advised he was now 34 years old and a family man, whereas previously he was single with no responsibilities. He was planning to take out an insurance contract with monthly payments to ensure that his cover did not lapse. The applicant gave Members assurances that he would not act in a manner that would require him to be brought before them again.
After careful consideration and taking into account all the relevant factors in considering whether the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a Private Hire Driver’s Licence and a Hackney Carriage Licence the Sub Committee RESOLVED that the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Drivers Licence under Section 51 of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976 and that his application should be approved subject to the requirement of the standard conditions for the following reasons:
1. Members considered that the applicant has previously passed the Council’s knowledge test and DSA private hire driver test assessment in 2014. Members considered that the medical consultant was satisfied and that there were no issues with his medical and that the applicant held a full DVLA drivers licence.
2. Members considered the Council’s Safeguarding, Suitability and Convictions statement of Policy for Taxi Licensing which envisages that significant periods for rehabilitation for major traffic offences.
3. In light of this Members noted that 3 years had passed since the applicant’s conviction for driving without insurance and the grant of a Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Licence is within the Council's policy.
4. The applicant had not been convicted of any further offences in the intervening period and had expressed remorse.
5. Members noted that the applicant had given reasons for the offences committed.
6. Members expressed a view that a note be placed on the applicant’s licensing file that should he commit any further offences that he will be brought back before Committee.
7. Members felt that the applicant should not be required to retake the DSA or the Councils knowledge test.