Minutes:
The Chair invited the applicant (MH), his wife and his solicitor, Ms Ghinday, from Dennings Solicitors into the hearing, made introductions and outlined the procedure to be followed.
Jonathan Lloyd, Licensing Officer read out the summary of the licence history, convictions/offences and other information relating to MH’s Private Hire Drivers Licence set out in the report which had been circulated to all parties in advance of the meeting.
Elaine Moreton, Section Leader (Licensing) reported that the review hearing was as a result of information brought to the attention of the Compliance Team on a complaint relating to the conduct of a driver. The matter had been referred to the Sub Committee in accordance with the Guidelines relating to Relevance of Convictions and Breaches of Licensing Conditions, specifically paragraph 5.1.25 (a) conduct of hackney carriage and private hire vehicle drivers, proprietors and operators.
All parties were invited to question the Section Leader (Licensing) on the report.
In response to questions the Section Leader (Licensing) reported that the service became aware of the situation through an anonymous complaint. Regarding completing the online application form, the form contained a question ‘Have you held or are you currently licensed to drive a hackney carriage or private hire vehicle with any other Council’. The applicant answered ‘No’ to the question. If he had answered ‘Yes’ we would have investigated it.
MH’s solicitor had no questions to the Section Leader (Licensing) on the report.
The Chair invited MH’s solicitor to put the case on his behalf. She stated that MH had said that he did not submit the initial Private Hire Vehicle Driver’s licence application form. It was completed by a person at Falcon Cars without MH being present. He had provided Falcon Cars with the information to complete the application form. He is embarrassed about the Viagra and sexual enhancement drugs found in his vehicle. He cannot leave them at home because of his children and he cannot leave them in a cupboard at his home. The cocaine found in the vehicle was not his and he does not know how it got there. Regarding the tyre lever, he had a puncture and after changing the tyre he did not put the bar away in the boot. On the issue of non-disclosure, the application form was completed by someone else. MH did not feel that he needed to disclose the incident because he was not under investigation or convicted. She concluded by saying that MH finds it difficult without his licence to obtain work. He had bills and young children.
All parties were invited to question MH on his submission.
In response to questions MH through his solicitor stated the he regards himself as an experienced private hire driver; he understands basic or simple English but cannot understand legal or technical language. He went onto explain how he changed the tyre using the lever. He accepted that he was naïve (in not checking the details on the online application) and trusted Falcon Cars to complete it on his behalf. He gave Falcon Cars his documents and they took copies. He was not present when they completed the application process. Regarding the console where drugs were found, he maintained that he never touched the console. The console where the drugs were found was closed and that his friends may have put it (the drugs) there or it might have been a passenger who are sometimes in the front of the vehicle. He also maintained that he followed the police officer when requested (he was not distracted).
The Chair invited the applicant MH to make a final statement. MH’s solicitor said there was nothing more to add. MH had trusted someone with the application form. Yes, he was naive in not checking it. He did not want to leave the sex items at home. Taxi driving is the only thing he has done. He cannot live on a factory minimum wage and he asked that he be given another chance.
The Section Leader (Licensing) summed up by saying the question for the Sub Committee was whether MH was a fit and proper person to hold a Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence. The circumstances give rise to questions about his conduct as a driver and dishonesty.
MH, his wife and solicitor, the Section Leader (Licensing) and the Licensing Officer left the room to allow the Sub Committee to determine the matter.
All parties were later invited back into the hearing and the Senior Solicitor detailed the decision of the Sub Committee.
Resolved:
That, having considered all the evidence before them both written and oral, provided at the hearing, the Sub-Committee is not satisfied that MH is a fit and proper person and therefore, in accordance with s61 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, have MH’s decided to revoke MH’s Private Hire Vehicle Driver’s Licence. This decision is made in accordance with paragraph 5.1.25 (a) of the guidelines relating to relevance of convictions and breaches of licence conditions agreed by the Licence Committee on 26 April 2017.
MH has a right of appeal, against the decision of the Sub-Committee, to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of receipt of this decision. Should an appeal and be unsuccessful, the Council would seek the costs incurred in defending the appeal.
MH, his wife and his solicitor left the room.