Issue - meetings

Members were asked to consider and determine an application for a combined hackney carriage and private hire driver licence from Applicant - 000879 who had previously held a combined licence with this authority, and which was revoked by this Licensing Committee.

Applicant - 000879 attended the meeting and was given the opportunity to make representation.

Committee papers and reports had been provided to all relevant parties prior to the meeting. 

The report detailed the following:

- A copy of the Applicant – 000879’s application, including a DVLA check code and current full licence with no endorsements

- A copy of minutes from the meeting where Applicant – 000879’s licence was revoked as well as a copy of the decision notice.

- A copy of a summary transcript between Applicant – 000879 and Licensing Officers.

- A copy of two-character references which had been supplied by Applicant – 000879.

The Chair introduced everyone present and explained the procedure to be followed during the hearing.

The Committee noted that the application was for the grant of an application for a combined hackney carriage and private hire vehicle drivers’ licence as detailed within the Committee report.

The Committee heard that Applicant – 000879 had previously held a licence with the authority, which was revoked by the Committee on 16th July 2024.

The Committee read the minutes from the Committee hearing held on 16th July 2024, and the decision notice that followed, which appeared as part of the Committee papers.

The Committee noted that Applicant – 000879’s licence was revoked following three separate complaints received in April and May 2024. An outline of the complaints before the Committee held on 16th July 2024 was set out in the decision notice, summarised as follows:-

•Complaint 1 – On 2nd April 2024, a member of the public reported PHV 2275 had collided with her vehicle and left the scene, which was captured on CCTV. The driver was identified as Applicant – 000879, who initially denied the collision and stated that he had been at home asleep at that time. When Applicant – 000879 was interviewed in relation to this matter, his recollection of the date in question changed, then admitting to officers that he vaguely remembered the incident. Despite this, and viewing the CCTV with officers during interview, Applicant – 000879 denied colliding with the complainant’s vehicle and denied that witnesses had attempted to prevent him from driving away. Applicant – 000879 also denied any damage to his vehicle, despite being advised that the operator had confirmed damage to the vehicle consistent with the impact area. During interview, Applicant – 000879 said that he checked his vehicle on the day of the incident and there was no damage, other than scratches to the wheel arch which he said were caused by him scratching the vehicle on a wall.

•Complaint 2 – A complaint was received from a member of the public who alleged that Applicant – 000879 had littered from his vehicle and had behaved in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50