There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest.

To pass the following resolution:

That in accordance with section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information falling within paragraph 3 of schedule 12A to the act relating to the business affairs of particular persons.

Resolved:        That in accordance with section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the remaining items of business as they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information falling within paragraph 3 of schedule 12A to the act relating to the business affairs of particular persons.

The Chair invited Elaine Moreton, Section Leader (Licensing) and the Applicant (JC) into the Hearing, made introductions and outlined the procedure to be followed.

The Section Leader (Licensing), outlined the report regarding an application for a Private Hire Driver Licence, which had been circulated to all parties in advance of the meeting.  The matter had been referred to the Sub-Committee in accordance with Guidelines Relating to Relevance of Convictions and Breaches of Licence Conditions, specifically the accumulation of 6 penalty points on his driving licence.

All parties were invited to question the Section Leader (Licensing) on the report.  No questions were asked.

JC confirmed that the information contained within the report was accurate.

The Chair invited JC to make representations.

JC stated that his friend had phoned him to ask if he would cover work for him.  He had no idea that he needed different insurance cover and his friend didn’t tell him.  Whilst undertaking the work he was stopped by the Police, who informed him that he was not covered to do such work. JC apologised for his ignorance

All parties were invited to question the Applicant on his submission.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, JC stated the following:

·     The work was fast-food delivery.  He had been asked to cover at short notice and it was the first time he had done so.

·     He used his own vehicle, which was covered by personal rather than business insurance.

·     Following the incident his friend said that he had forgot to tell him that he needed to be insured to do the work.  He had not been a good friend.

In response to questions from the Section Leader (Licensing), JC stated the following:

·     The food had been in the front passenger seat.  Police from an unmarked car had stopped him as he returned to his car after making the delivery.

No questions were asked by the Senior Legal Executive.

The Chair invited JC to make a final statement.  JC said that he had made a mistake, for which he was sorry, and that he had learned that he had to check the requirements before taking a job.  He needed to be able to work flexi-time to enable him to take his kids to school, the eldest of which was autistic.  He also had to take his wife to work.  Currently he was not earning enough to provide for his family.

JC and the Section Leader (Licensing) left the room to allow the Sub-Committee to determine the matter.

The Chair invited JC and the Section Leader (Licensing) back into the Hearing.

The Chair detailed the decision of the Sub-Committee.

Resolved

          That, having considered all the evidence presented at the Hearing, both written and oral, the Sub-Committee agree to grant a Private Hire Vehicle Driver’s Licence for a period of 12 months.  The Licence is subject to JC passing the knowledge test and a satisfactory medical, if he hasn’t already done so.  The Licence is also subject to review by Licensing Services  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The Chair invited Elaine Moreton, Section Leader (Licensing) and the Applicant (MR) into the Hearing, made introductions and outlined the procedure to be followed.

The Section Leader (Licensing), outlined the report regarding an application for a Private Hire Driver Licence, which had been circulated to all parties in advance of the meeting.  The matter had been referred to the Sub-Committee in accordance with Guidelines Relating to Relevance of Convictions and Breaches of Licence Conditions, specifically paragraphs 5.1.4 (a) and 5.1.3(b).

All parties were invited to question the Section Leader (Licensing) on the report.  In response to a question from the Sub-Committee, the Section Leader (Licensing) confirmed that MR’s conviction for driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol was not relevant as he was clear of the Council’s guidelines by 2011.

MR confirmed that the information contained within the report was accurate.

The Chair invited MR to make representations.

MR said that he had committed the drink driving offence in 2005 when he had been young, silly and stupid and he had paid the consequences.  He had matured since then.

The first points on his licence were for exceeding a 30 mph speed limit.  The second points were a result of the DVLA sending the paperwork to his ex-wife’s address, meaning that he didn’t receive it.

He had driven an ambulance for the British Red Cross as a patient courier. With the agreement of the Sub-Committee, references from the British Red Cross, Walsall Adult and Community College, a previous line manager at Russells Hall Hospital and an associate from Walsall Academy, known through volunteer work.

All parties were invited to question the Applicant on his submission.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, MR stated the following:

·     He was 24 or 25 years of age when he was convicted for drink-driving.  He had gained responsibility since then.

·     He had held a driving licence since 2011.

·     He had not held a driving licence when he was convicted of drink-driving in 2005.  He had run a newsagents for many years, working in the shop for 16-18 hours per day and did not have to drive to the cash and carry as he had stock delivered.

·     Should he be granted a licence he had work lined up with the family firm, though he was also considering applying to work through Uber.  He already had a number of vehicles as he bought and sold them, he was quite experienced in the motor trade.

·     He did not have a family when he was convicted for drink-driving.  He now had a lot of responsibility and the British Red Cross had provided him a chance at a responsible job.  He felt he deserved a chance to be a PHVD.

·     In his work for the British Red Cross he was authorised to drive with a blue light if the patient’s life was in danger.  To enable him to do that he had passed a course, at the first attempt, in Coventry.  It was not the advanced course that paramedics  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Chair invited Elaine Moreton, Section Leader (Licensing) and the Applicant (ME) into the Hearing, made introductions and outlined the procedure to be followed.

The Section Leader (Licensing), outlined the report regarding an application for a Private Hire Driver Licence, which had been circulated to all parties in advance of the meeting.  The matter had been referred to the Sub-Committee in accordance with Guidelines Relating to Relevance of Convictions and Breaches of Licence Conditions, specifically paragraph 5.1.9.

All parties were invited to question the Section Leader (Licensing) on the report.  No questions were asked.

ME confirmed that the information contained within the report was accurate.

The Chair invited ME to make representations.

ME said that the relevant conviction happened around Christmas 2012 and he was cautioned in 2013.  He had worked for the same company in Bristol for around 12 years, holding a relevant degree for the profession.  He worked on a high security site which required clearances so he had a DBS check every year.  His wife was diagnosed with grade 3 cancer and was told that action needed to be taken very quickly.  It was a very stressful time, with ME working 7pm-7am shifts 4 or 5 nights a week, sometimes even 7 nights if cover was required.  He had to drive his wife to her hospital appointments and had a 10 month old baby to look after.  All of this resulted in ME not being of clear mind through a lack of sleep.

On the night of the incident, ME had been allowed to leave work early, at 3 am, so that he could catch up on sleep.  As he drove home along a main road, not a red light district, a young lady came out of a telephone box and flagged him down.  Thinking that she had a problem, he stopped the car (ME added that she was not under age nor was he on the sex offenders register).  The lady got in the car and asked what she could do for ME.  It was at that point that he realised that she was a working girl so he explained that he was not looking for any “services”.  She asked if he had a cigarette, he gave one to her and they began to talk.  At that point a Police car pulled up behind him.  He tried to explain to the Police that he hadn’t engaged in any sexual activity and they were just having a cigarette.  They could see his uniform and so knew that he had just finished work.  They gave him two options – he could be arrested and the case would go to the Crown Court or he could accept a caution.  He couldn’t take the option of being arrested as he had a sick wife and a child to care for so he accepted the caution without realising that it would be on record for so long.  He signed it in the January and attended a rehabilitation course.

All parties were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Chair invited Elaine Moreton, Section Leader (Licensing) and the Applicant (TR) into the Hearing, made introductions and outlined the procedure to be followed.

The Section Leader (Licensing), outlined the report regarding an application for a Private Hire Driver Licence, which had been circulated to all parties in advance of the meeting.  The matter had been referred to the Sub-Committee in accordance with Guidelines Relating to Relevance of Convictions and Breaches of Licence Conditions, specifically paragraphs 5.1.3 (b) and 5.1.10 (b).

All parties were invited to question the Section Leader (Licensing) on the report.  No questions were asked.

TR confirmed that the information contained within the report was accurate.

The Chair invited TR to make representations.

TR said that his speeding conviction was in a hired vehicle.  He had overlooked the speed and held his hands up the offence.

With regard to his criminal convictions, his brother was a PHVD and TR had used his car without consent, not knowing that he could not drive a plated vehicle and thinking that because he had fully comprehensive insurance he was covered.  He acknowledged it was his mistake.

With regard to his conviction for failing to give information as to his identity, he challenged it in Court as he had been estranged from his wife at the time and she had not passed the letters on to him.  However, he couldn’t prove that he had been living with his Mother at the time, who he had been looking after.

His Licence would be clean by November and he was currently in employment, supporting his family, and had a mortgage.  He just wanted flexibility in his working hours.

All parties were invited to question the Applicant on his submission.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, TR stated the following:

·     The family shared a few vehicles, without always asking one another, but he hadn’t been aware that he shouldn’t use a plated one.

·     He was now aware that plates were issued specifically to the vehicle driver and understood the reasons why ie. that person would have been subject to CRB checks.

·     He was not aware what the term ‘make false representation to make gain for self’ meant but he had represented himself in Court and pleaded guilty.

·     It was the first time that he had driven the taxi and it was pulled over for a standard check.  He had never been a criminal or stole and he now understood the law.  The way he saw it was that he didn’t set out to commit a crime but it was his fault.  He was of good character.

In response to questions from the Section Leader (Licensing), TR stated the following:

·     He had permission to drive the vehicle in the sense that the family did not ask each other for permission.

·     He had lived at his mother’s house for 5 or 6 months but hadn’t notified the DVLA as he had intended to move back to his wife.

·     His brother’s Licence was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Chair invited Elaine Moreton, Section Leader (Licensing) and the Applicant (SM) into the Hearing, made introductions and outlined the procedure to be followed.

The Section Leader (Licensing), outlined the report regarding an application for a Private Hire Driver Licence, which had been circulated to all parties in advance of the meeting.  The matter had been referred to the Sub-Committee in accordance with Guidelines Relating to Relevance of Convictions and Breaches of Licence Conditions, specifically paragraphs 5.1.3 (b), 5.1.12 (b), 5.1.13 (a) and 5.1.1 (a).

All parties were invited to question the Section Leader (Licensing) on the report.  No questions were asked.

SM confirmed that the information contained within the report was accurate.

The Chair invited SM to make representations.

SM said that he was grateful for the opportunity to help the Sub-Committee to see for who he was today rather than who he was in the past.

At the time that he was convicted for carrying a lock knife he was 18 years old, immature and growing up in a rough area but that was no excuse. He was now married with 3 kids and was the sole provider for the family, working 2 jobs – 3 days in a garage and 3 days delivering fast food.  He had matured with age and saw things differently now he had children.  That he currently worked 2 jobs to make ends meet showed that he would pit the hours in should he be granted a Licence.

With regard to his conviction for Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, there was noise outside his house at 4 am so he went outside to see if everyone was ok and to diffuse the situation.  There were two drunk men and SM threw a punch at one of them.  His neighbour had been hit first but he hadn’t been hit.  It was out of character for him to throw a punch, he had tried to diffuse the situation but the outcome was different.

He had paid for his mistakes and he would respect the decision of the Sub-Committee.

All parties were invited to question the Applicant on his submission.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, SM stated the following:

·     The 4 inch lock knife was on a keyring and had been purchased from Birmingham market.  He hadn’t realised it was illegal.  It was discovered by the Police during a routine stop and search, they saw it dangling from the ignition.

·     It would not have been better if it had been a smaller knife but he wouldn’t have been convicted.

·     He had also bought a BB gun from Birmingham market.  It was in his car in a bag with the receipt when the Police found it.

·     The stop and search happened at round midday.  He had matured around 5 years ago.  He got marries 4 years ago.

·     He acknowledged that 200 hours of community work and a £300 fine were towards the top level of punishment that could be received and indicated that his  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.