Minutes:
Members were asked to consider and determine what action to take as to whether combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 remained a fit and proper person to hold a combined hackney carriage and private hire drivers’ licence, with this authority.
Combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 attended the meeting alongside his legal representative Mr Simon Walker of Appleby Hope & Matthews Solicitors and was given the opportunity to make representation.
A witness relating to complaint number 2 was also in attendance and 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 recording of a phone call between combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 and a Taxi Operator
. A copy of a summary of CCTV footage
. A copy of images showing damage to a complainant’s vehicle and to a Private Hire Vehicle.
. A copy of a summary transcript of an interview between combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 and Licensing Officers.
The Chair introduced everyone present and explained the procedure to be followed during the hearing.
The Committee understood that the matter before them was to determine the continued fitness of combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 as detailed in the Committee report and appendices.
The Committee heard that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 had previously held a licence with this authority since before 2003 and had had his licence revoked in March 2020 due to a medical issue. Combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 re-applied for a combined licence in June 2023, which was granted on 1st August 2023.
The Committee heard that there were three separate complaints before them, relating to combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 and his private hire vehicle. A summary of the complaints were outlined to the Committee is as follows:-
Complaint 1 – On 2nd April 2024, a member of the public reported that a Private Hire Vehicle had collided with her vehicle and left the scene. The complainant and a nearby shop provided CCTV footage of the collision. The complainant stated she had called the operator, who identified the driver of the Private Hire Vehicle as combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879, who denied the collision and stated that he had been at home asleep at that time.
Combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 was interviewed in relation to the matter on 24th April 2024, and 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, combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 denied colliding with the complainant’s vehicle and denied that witnesses had attempted to stop him from driving away. Combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 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, combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 said that he checked his vehicle on the day of the incident and there was no damage. He was then asked again about the scratches to the wheel arch which he said were caused by him reversing off his drive and scratching the vehicle on a wall.
Complaint 2 – Following combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879’s interview regarding Complaint 1 on 24th April 2024, a further complaint was received from a member of the public. It was alleged that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 had littered from his vehicle and had behaved in an intimidating manner towards the complainant, when confronted, in the presence of her child. The complainant expressed that the incident left her feeling worried that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 would seek retribution, as he knew where she lived. The complainant said that she was particularly anxious when she heard vehicles outside of her home with the engine running.
When combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 was interviewed about complaint number 2 on 20th May 2024, he denied throwing air fresheners out of the window of his vehicle. Combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 stated that there were air fresheners on the rear-view mirror of the vehicle when he picked it up, which affected his hay fever. combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 told officers that as he tried to take these off the rear-view mirror they flew out of the open window. Combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 accepted that he did not pick these up and said when he returned to the spot where this happened the air fresheners were not there. In interview, combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 denied being aggressive and claimed that it was in fact the complainant who intimidated him. The witness attended the Committee hearing in order to give evidence in relation to Complaint 2.
Complaint 3 – On 15th May 2024, footage was received from the Council’s CCTV team, showing a Private Hire Vehicle involved in facilitating drug dealing. The information received from Cleveland Police stated that when the driver of the Private Hire Vehicle was confronted by police, it was driven towards the police car at speed and then onto a footpath to get away. The operator identified the Private Hire Vehicle as being rented to combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879, however there were no booking records at the date and time of the incident, which led officers to suspect the criminal offences of “plying for hire” and “driving without insurance”, in addition to the drug dealing activity.
Due to the serious nature of this incident, combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879’s combined licence was suspended on 16th May 2024.
Combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 was interviewed on 20th May 2024; he confirmed he was the sole driver of the Private Hire Vehicle in question, however, went on to say he was not driving the vehicle in the early hours of 15th May 2024, and admitted that on this occasion his son was driving the vehicle. Combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 provided his son’s name to officers and confirmed that he lived with combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 at his home address.
Combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 stated that his son did not hold a Private Hire Driver Licence or a full DVLA driving licence, as he was learning to drive. Combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 told officers that his son had never taken his car before and when he asked his son about it, he said he was taking it to McDonald’s. Combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 stated that he now took his keys upstairs with him to prevent this from happening again.
Combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 was asked again if he was driving the vehicle during the incident outlined in Complaint 1, as officers suspected that it may have been combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879’s son who was involved in the collision and made off from the scene. Combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 assured officers that he was driving the vehicle on Tuesday 2nd April 2024, and stated, “it wasn’t anyone else”.
The Committee were told that following the interview on 20th May 2024, enquiries were made with Council Tax and Electoral Services to identify the address of combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879’s son. Both services advised from their records that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 was the only person registered at his address, and that his son was registered as living at another address. When combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 was asked about this at the time, he was insistent that his son lived with him.
The Committee heard combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879’s history as a licenced driver as set out in the report before them. A summary of this information was as follows:-
•8th March 2004 – combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 was prosecuted for fraud. He was referred to the Licensing Committee, who suspended his licence for two weeks.
•19th October 2007 – combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 received a written warning for using a mobile telephone whilst driving.
•25th May 2010 – combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 failed to declare a motoring conviction for using a mobile telephone whilst driving. Combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 received a written warning.
•20th September 2011 – combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 received advice regarding overcharging and his attitude.
•24th January 2013 – combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879’s DBS check was unsatisfactory for a licenced driver as a conviction for shoplifting was revealed. Combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 received a written warning.
•15th December 2014 – combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 was stopped by police for using a mobile telephone and not wearing seatbelt. Combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 received a written warning following this.
•24th March 2020 – combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879’s licence was revoked as he was medically unfit due to a heart bypass.
•1st August 2023 – combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 re-applied for a combined licence, which was granted.
•
25th January 2024 – combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 was arrested by police, put into a police van and had his vehicle searched. Combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 said this was in relation to an armed robbery at a bookmaker, but that he was cleared at the scene. Combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 was issued with oral advice to report any dealings with police to the licensing team.
Combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879’s representative, Mr Walker, addressed the Committee in relation to each of the three complaints in turn.
The Committee asked questions of combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 and his representative.
Complaint 1 - Mr Walker explained to the Committee that the reality of the situation was that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 had covered up for his son and accepted that he was wrong to do this. Mr Walker assured the Committee that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 was telling the truth when he said that he was in bed at the time of the incident, and that he did not work until the following day. Mr Walker confirmed that everything that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 told officers was correct, apart from his failure to advise officers that the vehicle was driven by his son on that date, without his knowledge. The Committee heard from Mr Walker that when combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 told officers that he remembered the incident, he was simply waffling; in an attempt to cover for his son’s actions. Mr Walker told the Committee that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 now accepted that he lied to the officers.
The Committee listened to the audio recording provided by the operator of combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879’s telephone on 2nd April 2024, in relation to Complaint 1. Mr Walker stated that everything said in that call was true; it was not combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 driving the vehicle and that he had not been out of the house at that time of day.
In response to the Committee’s questioning in relation to Complaint 1, Mr Walker advised the Committee that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 did not know at the point he received the telephone call from the operator that his son had taken his car, and that this had caused a great deal of upset for combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879’s family. Mr Walker confirmed to the Committee that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 did not become aware that it was his son driving his vehicle on 2nd April 2024, until after his second interview on 20th May 2024.
The Committee heard from the Licensing Team Leader, that despite combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 being in regular contact with officers regarding these matters, he had never mentioned this to the Council at any point before the Committee hearing.
The Committee questioned combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 in relation to the date that he discovered that his son was in fact responsible for the collision on 2nd April 2024. Mr Walker explained to the Committee that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 was covering for his son in relation to Complaint 1 during the interviews on 24th April and 20th May 2024. The Committee questioned Mr Walker as to how combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 could be covering for his son during those interviews if he did not know that it was his son’s fault until after the second interview. Mr Walker told the Committee that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 suspected that it was his son’s fault all along and was therefore covering for him, despite not knowing for certain that it was his son’s fault until after the second interview.
Complaint 2 - Witness was in attendance at the Committee hearing, supported by a Licensing Officer, in order to give evidence in relation to Complaint 2. Everyone present at the hearing viewed the CCTV footage regarding this incident.
The witness explained to the Committee that she saw combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 pull air fresheners from his vehicle’s rear-view mirror and throw them out of the driver’s window as he turned left, and that the litter was still in situ a couple of days later. The witness told the Committee how, as she was driving, she asked combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 from her vehicle if he was going to pick his rubbish up, to which he responded from his vehicle, “no”. The Committee heard that the witness continued on her journey home with her child in the passenger seat of her vehicle.
The witness described to the Committee how combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 followed her to her home address in his vehicle, reversing his vehicle back towards her house until he was outside of her home, which was captured by the CCTV. The Committee heard from the witness how she told combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 that she had noted his badge number, and combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 responded by taking a photograph of her home and vehicle, saying I have your number too. The witness described how intimidating she found combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 behaviour, particularly as her child was present and combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 took a photograph of her house.
Mr Walker explained to the Committee that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 accepted that the air fresheners left his vehicle through the window, although he did not accept that this was an intentional act. In response to the Committee’s questioning around his reason for not picking up his litter, combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 told the Committee that when he returned to the area the air fresheners were not there.
In response to the Committee’s questioning in relation to his behaviour towards the witness, combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 admitted that he was angry because he thought that the witness was following him, but could not explain, when questioned, why he took a photograph of her house. Combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 assured the Committee that he had deleted the photograph.
The Committee heard through Mr Walker that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 now appreciated that his behaviour was intimidating and distressing to the witness, and that he had not intended to make her feel that way. The Committee witnessed combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 apologise to the witness directly, after this was suggested by a Committee member.
At the conclusion of submissions in respect of Complaint 2, the witness left the hearing, accompanied by the Licensing Officer.
Complaint 3 - Mr Walker expressed to the Committee that, in his view, Complaint 3 should be disregarded as combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 has explained to police that his son was driving his vehicle, and that the police had accepted this. It was explained to Mr Walker by the Committee that in assessing combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879’s fitness and propriety to hold a licence, members could take into account any information before them that they felt was relevant. Mr Walker was advised by the Committee that it was a matter for members as to how much weight they placed upon information when reaching their decision, on the balance of probabilities.
It was established through the Committee’s questioning of combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 that his son lived between combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879’s address and his mother’s address, as his mother was receiving medical treatment for cancer.
The Committee was given an opportunity to ask questions of combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879, with combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 speaking last.
In summing up, Mr Walker told the Committee that he had advised combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 to be candid with members about his wrongdoing. Mr Walker explained to the Committee that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 knew that he had made an error of judgement in trying to protect his son. Mr Walker submitted to the Committee that despite his history set out in the report before them, combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 had picked up thousands of members of the public throughout his lengthy career as a licenced driver without cause for concern. Mr Walker told the Committee that this situation was financially difficult for combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879, who had had his licence suspended since May 2024. Mr Walker urged the Committee to give combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 a chance to prove that he was a fit and proper person.
Members had regard to the Committee papers, which had been circulated prior to the hearing and presented to them, in addition to the oral submissions made by both Mr Walker, and combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 in response to the Committee’s questions.
Having carefully considered the written documentation before them and in reaching their decision, the members had regard to the provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. The Committee also had regard to the Council’s Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Licensing Policy 2021 – 2026 (“the Policy”).
The Committee noted that the relevant legislative provision in this case is under section 61(1)(b) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. This allows the Committee to suspend or revoke licences for “any other reasonable cause”. When determining this matter, the Committee considered this matter on its merits.
The Committee did not believe combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879’s version of events in relation to his knowledge of Complaint 1. The Committee felt, on the balance of probabilities, that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 knew that it was his son that was responsible for the collision. The Committee noted that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 had not informed the licensing team of this information before the hearing, whenever he became aware of it.
The Committee members took into consideration that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 appeared insincere and disingenuous in response to the Committee’s questioning about the complaints before them. The Committee did not feel that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 had taken Mr Walker’s advice to be candid in his responses to the Committee.
The Committee found it hard to understand why combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879, who admitted to officers on 20th May 2024, during his interview, that his son was responsible for driving his vehicle in the early hours of 15th May (Complaint 3), and yet still lied to officers at that time then about his son driving his vehicle on 2nd April 2024 (Complaint 1). The Committee’s doubts in relation to combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 were compounded by his dubious explanations about exactly when he became aware of his son taking his car and being responsible for the collision in Complaint 1.
Framed by the more recent occasion that his son had taken his car, as set out in Complaint 3, the Committee were concerned about combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879’s ability to ensure that his licenced vehicle was secure and not being driven unlawfully by his son. The Committee found combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879’s lack of oversight of his son’s unlawful use of his licenced vehicle concerning, particularly as this has happened twice in six weeks, on both 2nd April and 15th May.
In addition to their concerns in relation to Complaint 1, the Committee were alarmed at combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 behaviour towards the witness as set out in Complaint 2. The Committee found the witness to be a credible and honest witness. The Committee felt that it was reasonable of the witness to request that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 pick up his litter, whether this had left his vehicle window intentionally or not.
The Committee found combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879’s intimidating and distressing behaviour towards the witness to be inappropriate behaviour for a licenced driver. Despite combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879, in his own admission, becoming angry when he thought that the witness was following him, the Committee strongly felt that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 overreacted in this situation, which he could have prevented by disposing of his litter correctly, and should never had taken a photograph of her property.
The Committee did not feel that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 was credible in response to the majority of their questioning, nor did they find his apology to the witness to be genuine and sincere.
The Committee members were not satisfied that they would allow people for whom they care to enter a vehicle with combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 due to their doubts surrounding his explanation of the circumstances that led to both Complaints 1 and 2. The Committee felt that this was compounded by combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879’s history as a licenced driver as outlined in the report before the Committee. The Committee felt that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879’s history, added to how he had responded to the three complaints before the Committee, demonstrated a pattern of concerns in relation to combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879’s attitude and breaking the rules. The Committee noted that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 had already received written warnings and advice on at least six occasions during his career.
The Committee considered the Local Government Association Councillor Handbook: Taxi and PHV Licensing, which states:- “In the case of McCool v Rushcliffe Borough Council 1998, Lord Bingham said this:
“One must it seems to me approach this case bearing in mind the objectives of this licensing regime which is plainly intended among other things to ensure so far as possible that those licensed to drive private hire vehicles are suitable persons to do so, namely that they are safe drivers with good driving records and adequate experience; sober, mentally and physically fit, honest and not persons who would take advantage of their employment to abuse or assault passengers.”
Lord Bingham’s view has since been confirmed in two further court cases; Anwar v Cherwell District Council and Leeds Council v Hussain. In the Committee’s view, the circumstances that had led to revocation being proposed meant that they could not ensure as far as possible that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 was a suitable and honest person to be licenced. The Committee noted that holding a licence was a privilege and not a right.
Ultimately, the Committee did not believe that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 was a fit and proper person to hold a combined hackney carriage and private hire vehicle drivers licence. The Committee were therefore unanimously satisfied that the current suspension should be lifted, and that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 licence should be revoked. Under the provisions of section 61(2b) and in the interest of public safety, the Committee determined that this revocation should have immediate effect, and combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 was therefore no longer authorised to drive such vehicles.
RESOLVED that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879 have his current suspension lifted and that combined hackney carriage and private hire driver – 000879’s licence be revoked for the reasons as detailed above.