Agenda item

Members were asked to consider and determine an application for a private hire driver licence from Applicant - 143645 who had re applied for a private hire driver licence, with this authority.

           

The Licensing Officer explained to the Committee that Applicant - 143645 was not in attendance at the hearing and had requested to defer the hearing for over one month, beyond 20th March 2025, citing his requirement to travel urgently due to his mother’s ill health.

 

The Committee considered Applicant – 143645’s request, however, decided to continue with the hearing, having taken into account Applicant – 143645’s history of not attending pre-arranged interviews which was one of the concerns before the Committee. The Committee felt that it was appropriate to continue the hearing without Applicant - 143645 being present, despite his request for a deferment.

 

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

 

The report detailed the following:

 

- A copy of Applicant – 143645’s application form, including his DVLA licence and check code

 

- A copy of a suspension notice to Applicant – 143645 from this authority.

 

- A copy of a summary transcript between Applicant – 143645 and Licensing Officers.

 

- A copy of a letter to intend to refuse Applicant – 143645 a licence due to Applicant – 143645 refusal to undertake a drugs test for which he had 48 hours to respond.

 

- A copy of Applicant – 143645’s e mailed response to the letter.

 

- A copy of 2 letters to Applicant – 143645 detailing complaints made by members of the public about Applicant - 143645.

 

- A copy of a witness statement relating to one of the complaints made against Applicant – 143645.

 

- A copy of a summary transcript with Applicant – 143645 and Licensing Officers.

 

The Committee understood that the matter before them was to determine an application for a private hire vehicle driver licence as detailed in the Committee report and appendices.

 

A copy of the report and the appendices had been provided to everyone present and to the members of the Committee. The Licensing Officer outlined the contents of the report to the Committee.

 

The Committee heard that Applicant – 143645 had previously held a licence to drive private hire vehicles issued by the Council in February 2018, that expired in February 2024.

 

The Committee were told that in October 2023, the licensing team received a complaint in relation to a private hire vehicle driver that was acting suspiciously near to, and approaching, the complainant’s home. Applicant – 143645 was identified as the driver subject to the complaint.

 

The Committee heard that during the investigation into this complaint, Applicant – 143645 was obstructive with officers; he did not attend pre-arranged interviews, which led to Applicant – 143645’s licence being suspended as a result of him not attending to be interviewed in relation to the complaint.

 

The Committee were told that Applicant – 143645 was eventually interviewed in January 2024, and although it was determined that the matter would be brought before the Licensing Committee, Applicant – 143645’s licence subsequently expired the following month, with no renewal application submitted.

 

The Committee were told that in October 2024, Applicant – 143645 re-applied for a licence and was invited for an interview, which took place on 20th January 2025. The Licensing Officer told the Committee that when asked why he had allowed his licence to expire in February 2024, Applicant – 143645 said that this was due to financial reasons, and that he had not realised that it was due for renewal; it was too late to renew his licence when he realised it had expired.

 

The Committee heard that when asked about the complaint from 2023, and why he failed to attend interviews at the time, Applicant – 143645 stated that he was not well, he forgot, and he could not recall the correct time when he had arrived too late for one appointment.

 

The Committee were told that Applicant – 143645 was reminded that under the Council’s Private Hire & Hackney Carriage Policy 2021-2026 (“the Policy”), he was required to comply with any reasonable request made by a licensing officer, and Applicant – 143645 confirmed that his non-compliance was not acceptable.

 

When asked if he was a fit and proper person to be licenced, the Committee heard that Applicant – 143645 told officers that he was fit and mentally safe, and that until now he had “not caused any havoc to anyone” and confirmed that he was also a PSV driver.

 

The Committee heard that towards end of the interview, Applicant – 143645 agreed to undertake an oral saliva drugs test, however once the interview had ended, Applicant – 143645 declined to participate in the test, stating that he would return another time.

 

The Committee were told that the Policy stated that a failure to comply with a request for a drug test may result in the suspension or revocation of a driver’s licence. As a result of his non-compliance, the Committee heard that Applicant – 143645 was sent a letter, setting out the Council’s intention to refuse to grant him a licence. The Committee read Applicant – 143645’s response to this letter, received via email on 22nd January 2025, which was ultimately why the matter was brought before the Committee for determination.

 

The Committee heard a summary of the information held by the licensing team in relation to Applicant – 143645:-

 

• February 2020 – a complaint was received that Applicant – 143645 refused a fare as the customer would not pay up front. Written advice was provided to Applicant – 143645.

 

• July 2023 – Applicant – 143645 failed to notify the licensing team of vehicle accident damage  within policy guidelines and received an oral warning.

 

• October 2023 – A report of stalking was received from a complainant who stated that a minibus had been parked outside of her house for hours in the afternoon of 10th October 2023; she was not at home at the time. The complainant stated that she was having work completed at her property, and that the driver of the minibus had approached the workmen and asked who lived there, if they lived alone and if they had a husband; the driver then left. The complainant reported that the driver returned later that evening and approached the property again. It was reported that the driver pushed the complainant’s front door open, and the complainant asked him what he was doing there. The complainant stated that the driver told her that someone had sent him, but that he quickly left when she pointed out that there was CCTV at the property. The driver was later identified as Applicant – 143645.

 

The Committee heard that Applicant – 143645 was eventually interviewed in relation to the October 2023 complaint in January 2024. The Committee were told that Applicant – 143645 admitted waiting outside the property for fifteen to twenty minutes, and claimed that he had asked the workmen if the house was for sale, and admitted he returned to the property later the same day for the same reason, stating “I know it’s a bit weird though”.

 

The Committee heard that Applicant – 143645 accepted that this behaviour was “a bit strange” and also stated, “I know it was very odd behaviour”. The Committee were told that  Applicant – 143645 was issued with a written warning and advised that it would remain on file and may be referred to if he applied for a licence in the future.

 

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 officers.

 

Having carefully considered the written documentation before them and in reaching their decision, 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 under section 51 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, the Committee shall not grant a driver’s licence unless they are satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person. When determining this application, the Committee considered this matter on its merits.

 

The Committee were concerned by Applicant – 143645’s failure to attend three pre-arranged interviews in relation to the complaint of stalking in 2023. The Committee agreed with Applicant – 143645’s remark during the interview in January 2024, that his behaviour around the complainant’s property was very odd behaviour indeed, which he did not appear to have a legitimate explanation for.

 

The Committee’s concerns in relation to the complaint of stalking were compounded by Applicant – 143645’s reluctance to participate in drugs testing, his failure to attend pre-arranged appointments and his request to defer the Committee hearing, all of which appeared to the Committee to exhibit a pattern of unusual behaviour and to demonstrate Applicant – 143645’s obstructive conduct and unreliability.

 

The Committee were not satisfied that they would allow people for whom they care to enter a vehicle with Applicant – 143645 due to their concerns regarding his unusual behaviour and unreliability. The Committee felt that this was compounded by Applicant – 143645’s lack of remorse for such behaviour. The Committee noted that holding a licence was a privilege and not a right.

 

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 City Council v Mehfooz Hussain [2002] EWHC 1145 (Admin). In the Committee’s view, the circumstances that have led to this matter being before the Committee meant that they could not ensure as far as possible that Applicant – 143645 was a suitable person to be licenced.

 

The Committee noted Applicant – 143645’s reference in his email dated 22nd January 2025, to being a single parent and looking after his elderly father. The Committee, however, also noted the decision in Leeds City Council-v-Mehfooz Hussain [2002] EWHC 1145 (Admin), where it was clarified that financial implications should not be considered when determining such matters under the licensing regime. The Committee understood that their paramount consideration is the safety of the travelling public, and that they could not therefore place weight on financial implications when determining applications. The Committee therefore did not place any weight on Applicant – 143645’s financial responsibilities when reaching their decision.

 

Ultimately, the Committee do not believe that Applicant – 143645 was a fit and proper person to hold a private hire vehicle driver licence. The Committee were therefore unanimously satisfied that Applicant – 143645’s application should be refused.

 

RESOLVED that Applicant – 143645’s application for a Private Hire Driver’s licence be refused for the reasons as detailed above.