Agenda item

Members were asked to consider and determine the continued fitness of licensed Hackney Carriage Driver - 001134 who’s vehicle was stopped during a joint operation by Cleveland Police Road Policing Unit alongside Licensing Officers due to his manner of driving.

 

Prior to the hearing, a discussion took place with Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 and Mr Ali, who Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 wished to assist him throughout the hearing. After several discussions, it was agreed that Mr Ali could attend the hearing to represent Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134, however it was noted that this was as a representative, rather than as an interpreter. Mr Ali understood that his role was to present the case on behalf of Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134, and that Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 would be required to answer the Committee’s questions himself.

 

Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 and Mr Ali representing hackney carriage driver - 001134 were 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 copy of a statement detailing an incident involving Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 during September 2024

 

- A copy of a summary transcript of an interview with Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 and Licensing Officers.

 

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

 

Members of the Council’s General Licensing Committee considered the above matter, full details of which appeared before the Members in their agenda and background papers.

 

The Committee understood that the matter before them was to determine the continued fitness of licenced Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 as detailed in the Committee report and appendices.

 

The Committee heard that Council records confirmed that Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 had been licenced with the Authority since before 2004.

 

The Committee were told that on Friday 27th September 2024, police and licensing officers conducted a compliance check operation on Council licensed private hire and hackney carriage vehicles. The Committee heard that whilst travelling down Norton Road, near Hills Drive, in the direction of Stockton-on-Tees at 00:30 hours on Saturday 28th September 2024, a hackney carriage vehicle was witnessed travelling in the opposite direction, towards Norton High Street.

 

The Committee heard that officers decided to carry out a routine check on the vehicle, turned around and began to follow the vehicle along Norton Road. The Committee were told that it was clear to the licensing officers and the police officer that something was distracting the driver, as on at least three occasions the vehicle crossed the central white line and drove onto the other side of the road.

 

The Committee were informed that the driver was believed to be travelling above the 30mph statutory speed limit, as the driver was estimated to be travelling at 40 to 47mph, due to the time it took for the police vehicle to catch up to it and the speed of the police vehicle at that time.

 

The Committee heard that the vehicle stopped at the taxi rank on Norton High Street outside the Tesco store; the police officer parked behind the vehicle and switched on the blue lights. The Committee were told that as the officers exited the police vehicle, they could hear a video playing from the hackney carriage vehicle, and they could see a light from a screen emanating from inside it.

 

The Committee heard that as officers approached the vehicle, the driver confirmed himself to be Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134, who paused the video that was playing on the screen built into his vehicle. The Committee were told that the police  officer issued Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 with a fixed penalty notice for using a mobile device whilst driving, despite Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 protesting that he would not do this again and asking for the officer to “let him off this one time”.

 

The Committee were told that on 8th October 2024, Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 was interviewed by licensing officers in relation to this incident; during which Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 stated that the video was not playing whilst he was driving and that he was swerving on Norton Road to avoid potholes. The Committee heard that during interview, Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 said that he had only turned the video on when he had parked at the rank on Norton High Street; officers advised Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 that this was not believable and questioned why he was changing the account that he gave on the night of the incident.  

 

The Committee also heard that Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 denied during interview that he exceeded the speed limit whilst travelling along Norton Road. The Committee were told by the Licensing Officer, in response to questioning, that he believed that the police officer did not deal with Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 for exceeding the speed limit as the police officer did not have correctly calibrated equipment to do this. 

 

The Committee were also told that on Friday 11th October 2024, Licensing Officers travelled along Norton Road on both carriageways to ascertain if there were any potholes or road defects that would account for Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134’s swerving; none were present.

 

Finally, the Committee were advised of the record of history and complaints held on the Council system relating to Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134, relevant matters included:-

 

• 16th November 2004 - Moves from rank to avoid taking consumer and was abusive. Action: insufficient evidence.

 

• 27th June 2006 – Attitude of driver/rude to passengers. Action: written warning.

 

• 10th April 2012 – Mobile phone use and manner of driving. Action: written warning.

 

• 27th April 2012 – Manner of driving and attitude of driver. Action: written warning.

 

• 14th September 2015 – Allegation targeting elderly customers with Alzheimer’s.          Action: licensee advised.

 

• 16th November 2015 – Licence suspended as suffered a heart attack, stent fitted.

 

Mr Ali advised the Committee that Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 stated that he was not speeding and believed that he was driving with due care and attention; Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 felt that the police may have been speeding to catch up with him.

 

In relation to allegations of swerving across the road on three occasions, the Committee heard that Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 stated that this was to avoid potholes and due to parked vehicles. Regarding allegations that he was watching a video whilst driving, Mr Ali told the Committee that Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 did not admit to watching a news channel on the screen, however felt that the only mistake he made was that he had not turned this off. The Committee were told by Mr Ali that Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 accepted telling the officer that this was the first time that he had done this.

 

In response to the Committee’s questioning about him previously using a mobile telephone whilst driving, as per the letter contained within the committee papers, Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 accepted that this complaint was made against him but denied using a mobile telephone whilst driving.

 

Regarding the allegation that Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 was swerving in the road whilst driving on 28th September 2024, Mr Ali told the Committee that this  was because of parked cars. The Committee heard from the Licensing Officer, who has provided a witness statement in relation to this incident, that he could confirm that Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 swerving whilst driving was not because of parked cars. The Committee heard Mr Ali maintain, on Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134’s behalf, that Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 crossed the white line whist driving to avoid an impact with parked vehicles.

 

Mr Ali further maintained, on Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134’s behalf, that Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 only played the news video whilst parked at the rank, and at no time was this playing whilst Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 was driving. Regarding the written warning for using a mobile telephone whilst driving, Mr Ali advised the Committee that Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 had forgotten this due to the passage of time, over twelve years ago. 

 

Mr Ali submitted to the Committee on Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134’s behalf that he made a mistake in that the screen was on and was not playing whilst he was driving, and that this was an error of judgement on Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134’s part. The Licensing Officer clarified, in response to the Committee’s questioning on this point, that it was illegal for drivers to use any handheld device whilst driving, even if they were licenced drivers accepting work using an application on a mobile device (hands-free devices can be used legally). The Committee noted that Mr Ali disputed this point and stated that all taxi drivers do this.

 

In relation to Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134’s other driver history, Mr Ali advised the Committee that these were minor allegations and not worthy of note.

 

The Committee was given an opportunity to ask questions of Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134, with Mr Ali speaking last.

 

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 the driver 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 was under section 61(1)(b) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. This allowed the Committee to suspend or revoke licences for “any other reasonable cause”.  When determining this matter, the Committee considered this matter on its merits.

 

In relation to using a mobile telephone whilst driving on 28th September 2024, the Committee considered that the police officer present, acting Sergent Carter, issued Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 a ticket for this offence. Although the Committee noted that Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 denied that he committed any offence, the Committee gave weight to the fact that the police officer who witnessed Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134’s driving issued him with a ticket. The Committee found the Licensing Officers evidence in relation to this matter to be credible and they added weight to this. 

 

The Committee understood that Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 told the police and licensing officers at the time that he had never used a mobile telephone whilst driving, however, the Committee noted that Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 previously received a written warning for this in 2012.

 

The Committee appreciated that the police took no separate action against Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 in relation to him allegedly exceeding the speed limit on 28th September 2024, as described in the Licensing Officers witness statement. The Committee found the Licensing Officers evidence to be reliable; on the balance of probabilities the Committee believed that it was more likely than not that this had occurred. In contrast, the Committee found Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134’s response in relation to this matter to be disingenuous and defensive.

 

The Committee members took into consideration that Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 appeared to be very assertive in response to licensing officers’ questioning  during interview, and at the hearing in response to the Committee’s questioning about the matters before them. The Committee found it hard to accept Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134’s version of events in relation to the 28th September 2024. The Committee’s doubt in relation to these matters were compounded by Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134’s dubious explanations in relation to when he had played the video, and that his version of events appeared to change when interviewed by licensing officers.

 

The Committee members were not satisfied that they would allow people for whom they care to enter a vehicle with Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 due to his manner of driving, as witnessed by police and Licencing Officers on 28th September 2024, and his attitude in response to questioning about this matter. The Committee felt that this was compounded by Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134’s concerning history as a licenced driver, as set out above, and his disingenuous attitude when he appeared before the Committee.

 

The Committee noted that Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 had received written warnings in the past in relation to his attitude, mobile telephone use and manner of driving, both in 2006 and 2012.

 

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 Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 was a safe and honest driver. The Committee noted that holding a licence was a privilege and not a right.

 

Ultimately, the Committee did not believe that Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 was a fit and proper person to hold a hackney carriage drivers’ licence. The Committee were satisfied that Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134’s licence should therefore be revoked.

 

RESOLVED that Hackney Carriage Driver -  001134 have his Hackney Carriage Drivers licence revoked for the reasons as detailed above.