Agenda item

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 granted by Birmingham City Council.  No action was taken against him and he still held it.

No questions were asked by the Lead Lawyer.

The Chair invited MR to make a final statement.  TR said that he knew that the convictions referred to ‘dishonesty’, ‘fraud’ etc but they were all for the same offence.  He always held his hands up to fines and bills.  He just wanted flexibility.  He had committed one offence but it was a big one and what he had done was wrong.  He now understood the law and wouldn’t do it again.

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

The Chair invited TR 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 TR 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 TR a Private Hire Vehicle Driver’s Licence.  This decision is made in accordance with paragraphs 5.1.3 (b) and 5.1.10 (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.

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