Agenda item

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 and the Police were required to pass.

·     He had not attended a rehabilitation course following his drink-driving conviction as he wasn’t offered the course.  Plus, he didn’t have a licence so it would not have mattered.

·     Regarding his speeding convictions, for the second he had been driving at around 34/35/36 mph in Burton-on-Trent in his wife’s car.  For the first he had been doing about the same speed.

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

·     He was a driver for the British Red Cross for approximately 6 months then they lost the contract.

·     Some of his penalty points would be removed from his licence within a few months time.

The Section Leader (Licensing) commented that it was possible that some of the information provided by the DVLA could be incorrect.  She was unaware as to why the second conviction would be effective for only 2 years instead of the usual 3 years.

No questions were asked by the Lead Lawyer.

The Chair invited MR to make a final statement.  MR thanked the Sub-Committee for considering his application and said that he had made a mistake and had paid for it.  He had a lot of responsibility and deserved a badge.  The points would be coming off his licence soon anyway.

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

The Chair invited MR 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 is not satisfied that MR a fit and proper person and therefore, in accordance with Section 51 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, have decided not to grant MR a Private Hire Vehicle Driver’s Licence.  This decision is made in accordance with paragraphs 5.1.4 (a) and 5.1.3(b) of the guidelines relating to relevance of convictions and breaches of licence conditions agreed by the Licence Committee on 25 July 2012.

The Applicant has a right of appeal, against the decision of the Sub-Committee, to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of receipt of this decision.

MR and the Section Leader (Licensing) left the room.