Agenda item

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hire driver licence from Applicant - 000879 who had previously held a combined licence with this authority, and which was revoked by this Licensing Committee.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- A copy of minutes from the meeting where Applicant – 000879’s licence was revoked as well as a copy of the decision notice.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The Committee heard that Applicant – 000879 had previously held a licence with the authority, which was revoked by the Committee on 16th July 2024.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The Committee noted that Applicant – 000879’s licence was revoked following three separate complaints received in April and May 2024.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 an intimidating manner towards her in the presence of her child. The complainant expressed that the incident left her feeling worried that Applicant – 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. Applicant – 000879 was interviewed about this complaint on 20th May 2024, he denied littering and being aggressive. The witness attended the Committee hearing and gave evidence in relation to her complaint.

 

•Complaint 3 – On 15th May 2024, footage was received from the Council’s CCTV team, showing Applicant – 000879’s Private Hire Vehicle involved in facilitating drug dealing. The information received from Cleveland Police stated that when Applicant – 000879’s 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 vehicle as being rented to Applicant – 000879’s 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.

The Committee noted that the reason that the Committee previously revoked Applicant – 000879’s  licence was set out in its decision notice, which stated, in summary:-

 

•The Committee did not believe Applicant – 000879’s version of events in relation to his knowledge of Complaint 1. The Committee felt, on the balance of probabilities, that Applicant – 000879 knew that it was his son that was responsible for the collision. The Committee noted that Applicant – 000879 had not informed the licensing team of this information before the Committee hearing, whenever he became aware of it.

 

• The Committee members took into consideration that Applicant – 000879 appeared insincere and disingenuous in response to the Committee’s questioning about the complaints before them.

 

• The Committee found it hard to understand why Applicant – 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), 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 Applicant – 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 Applicant – 000879’s ability to ensure that his licenced vehicle was secure and not being driven unlawfully by his son. The Committee found Applicant – 000879’s lack of oversight of his son’s unlawful use of his licenced vehicle concerning, particularly as this had 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 Applicant – 000879’s behaviour towards Ms C as set out in Complaint 2. The Committee found Ms C to be a credible and honest witness. The Committee felt that it was reasonable of Ms C to request that Applicant – 000879 pickup his litter, whether this had left his vehicle window intentionally or not.

 

• The Committee found Applicant – 000879’s intimidating and distressing behaviour towards Ms C to be inappropriate behaviour for a licenced driver. Despite Applicant – 000879, in his own admission, becoming angry when he thought that Ms C was following him, the Committee strongly felt that Applicant – 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 Applicant – 000879 was credible in response to the majority of their questioning, nor did they find his apology to the witness to be genuine nor sincere.

 

•The Committee members were not satisfied that they would allow people for whom they care to enter a vehicle with Applicant – 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 Applicant – 000879’s history as a licenced driver as outlined in the report before the Committee. The Committee felt that Applicant – 000879’s history, added to how he had responded to the three complaints before the Committee, demonstrated a pattern of concerns in relation to Applicant – 000879’s attitude and breaking the rules. The Committee noted that Applicant – 000879 had already received written warnings and advice on at least six occasions during his career.

 

The Committee heard that it was only seven months since the Committee had previously revoked Applicant – 000879 licence.

 

The Committee heard that Applicant – 000879 was interviewed in relation to his application on 6th January 2025, and a copy of the summary transcript appeared within the Committee papers.

 

Applicant – 000879’s history as a licenced driver was outlined to the Committee by the Licensing Officer. A summary of this information is as follows:-

 

• 8th March 2004 – Applicant – 000879 was prosecuted for fraud. He was referred to the Licensing Committee, who suspended his licence for two weeks.

 

•19th October 2007 – Applicant – 000879 received a written warning for using a mobile telephone whilst driving.

 

•25th May 2010 – Applicant – 000879 failed to declare a motoring conviction for using a mobile telephone whilst driving. Applicant – 000879 received a written warning.

 

• 20th September 2011 – Applicant – 000879 received advice regarding overcharging and his attitude.

 

• 24th January 2013 – Applicant – 000879’s DBS check was unsatisfactory for a licenced driver as a conviction for shoplifting was revealed. Applicant – 000879 received a written warning.

 

• 15th December 2014 – Applicant – 000879 was stopped by police for using mobile telephone and not wearing seatbelt. Applicant – 000879 received a written warning following this.

 

• 24th March 2020 – Applicant – 000879’s licence was revoked as he was medically unfit due to a heart bypass.

 

• 1st August 2023 – Applicant – 000879 re-applied for a combined licence, which was granted.

 

• 25th January 2024 – Applicant – 000879 was arrested by police, put into a police van and had his vehicle searched. Applicant – 000879 said this was in relation to an armed robbery at a bookmakers, but that he was cleared at the scene. Applicant – 000879 was issued with oral advice to report any dealings with police to the licensing team.

 

• 2nd April 2024 – A member of the public reported that Applicant – 000879’s vehicle collided with their vehicle and the driver left the scene.

 

• 24th April 2024 – A member of the public reported that Applicant – 000879 littered from his vehicle and behaved in an intimidating manner.

 

• 15th May 2024 – footage received from CCTV team showed Applicant – 000879’s vehicle facilitating drug dealing.

 

• 16th July 2024 – Applicant – 000879’s licence was revoked by the Committee.

The Committee and Applicant – 000879 were given an opportunity to ask questions of the Licensing Officer.

 

Applicant – 000879 provided the Committee with a copy of three character references in support of his application; an undated letter from HC, an email dated 22nd January 2025 from neighbour and friend, JN, and a letter dated 19th February 2025, from Councillor Mohammed Mazi Maroof, who stated that he was a close family friend of Applicant – 000879.

 

Applicant – 000879 told the Committee that at the time of the complaints that resulted in the revocation of his licence, his partner was sadly suffering from cancer, and he was trying to keep everything together. The Committee heard from Applicant – 000879 that he had hoped that if he gave his son a chance, that everything could be okay, and that is why he attempted to cover for his son’s actions.

 

Applicant – 000879 assured the Committee that he did not offer his son another chance, and did not cover for his actions the second time that he was in trouble. The Committee heard from Applicant – 000879 that he now secured his car keys, and that his son was now socialising with a different crowd of people and attending college.

 

Applicant – 000879 apologised to the Committee and said that the revocation of his licence had had a significant financial impact upon him.

 

In response to the Committee’s questioning, Applicant – 000879 confirmed that in his view he had always been a fit and proper person, despite attempting to cover for his son’s actions. Applicant – 000879 assured the Committee that he had always been honest and had never had any issues with anyone.

 

When questioned by the Committee in relation to his history as set out in the Committee papers, Applicant – 000879 said that these were historic and that since then he had not been in any trouble. In relation to his arrest in 2024 in relation to an armed robbery, Applicant – 000879 told the Committee that this occurred when he was on his way to the supermarket. Applicant – 000879 explained that the police attended his home address with guns, however this was purely a case of mistaken identity. 

 

When questioned by the Committee in relation to his written warning for using a mobile telephone and not wearing a seatbelt in 2014, Applicant – 000879 said that he now uses a hands-free kit.

 

The Committee asked Applicant – 000879 about his medical fitness and he assured members that he had now passed a medical examination, following his heart bypass surgery in 2020.

 

Applicant – 000879 was invited to speak last, and he assured the Committee that he regretted what had happened in the past and would like the Committee to give him another chance. Applicant – 000879 told the Committee that he had held a licence for thirty years and had never been in trouble.

 

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 Applicant – 000879 in response to the Committee’s questions, and the three character references provided in support of Applicant – 000879’s application.

 

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 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 felt that Applicant – 000879 was disingenuous when he stated that he had not been in trouble before the recent complaints from April and May 2024. The Committee were concerned at Applicant – 000879’s lack of insight into the three complaints and his driver history, which he appeared to minimise rather than accept.

 

The Committee noted that Applicant – 000879 had already received written warnings and advice on at least six occasions during his career. The Committee felt that Applicant – 000879’s history, plus how he appeared to minimise the three complaints that were before the Committee in 2024, raised recurrent concerns about Applicant – 000879’s attitude and his repeated non-compliance with legal requirements.

 

The Committee considered the character references provided by HC, JN, and Councillor Mohammed Mazi Maroof which had been provided in support of the applicant. Members were not persuaded that this was sufficient evidence to find that the applicant was a fit and proper person. The Committee did not add weight to the character references, as members found it reasonable to assume that the referees were not fully aware of the full contents of the evidence before the Committee, including the applicant’s full history, dishonesty and the extent of the intimidating behaviour towards a member of the public.

 

The Committee noted that no character references were received from previous passengers of the applicant in support of his assertion that he was a fit and proper person. The Committee further noted that no character references were provided by anyone for whom the applicant had worked for.

 

The Committee noted Applicant – 000879’s reference to the financial strain that the revocation of his licence had caused him. The Committee noted that as per the decision in Leeds City Council-v-Mehfooz Hussain [2002] EWHC 1145 (Admin), where it was clarified that financial difficulties should not be taken into account when determining such matters. The Committee understood that the licensing regime is in place to address the safety of the travelling public, and that they could not therefore place weight on financial implications when considering applications.

 

Whilst the Committee were sympathetic towards Applicant – 000879’s partner’s illness, and appreciated the impact that this had upon Applicant – 000879 and his family, members were not persuaded that this was sufficient justification for Applicant – 000879’s behaviour, nor for his driver history from 2004 to 2024.

 

The Committee acknowledged that Applicant – 000879’s apology in respect of him attempting to cover for his son’s actions appeared to be genuine. Unfortunately, however, the Committee noted that Applicant – 000879 made no reference to his intimidating and distressing behaviour towards a member of the public in the presence of her child in April 2024, who had asked him to pick up litter deposited from his taxi. The Committee felt that his lack of acknowledgement of his intimidating actions was equally as worrying to the Committee as his dishonesty in respect of his son’s actions, compounded by his history.

 

The Committee members were not satisfied that they would allow people for whom they care to enter a vehicle with Applicant – 000879 due to their doubts surrounding his honesty and his past behaviour. The Committee felt that this was compounded by Applicant – 000879’s concerning history as a licenced driver as set out in the Committee papers. 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 had 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 had led to revocation being proposed meant that they could not ensure as far as possible that Applicant – 000879 was a suitable and honest person to be licenced.

 

Ultimately, the Committee did not believe that Applicant – 000879 was a fit and proper person to hold a combined hackney carriage and private hire vehicle driver licence. The Committee were therefore unanimously satisfied that Applicant – 000879’s application should be refused.

 

RESOLVED that Applicant – 000879’s application for a Combined Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s licence be refused for the reasons as detailed above.