Agenda and draft minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and drew attention to the safety information.

None. The committee with two members was quorate.

None received

Recommended – that having regard to the quasi-judicial nature of the business on the Agenda, those Committee Procedure Rules relating to the moving of

motions and the rules of debate (CMR10 and 11) be suspended for the duration

of the meeting.

RESOLVED – that Committee procedure rules CMR10 and CRM11 be suspended relating to the moving of motions and rules of debate.

Recommended – that under Section 11A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972

the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the ground that involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 1of Schedule 12A to the Act, as amended.

RESOLVED – that the press and public be excluded from the following items of business to allow consideration of items containing exempt information under Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12(A) of the Local Government Act 1972.

The Driver was present with his legal representative.

The Neighbourhood Enforcement Officer introduced the report and summarised it for everyone.

·       She provided details of the licence held by AI.

·       On the 13^th August 2022 at 00.15 a complaint was received via the city council online portal. Serious allegations were made by a lone female passenger against AI as outlined in the report. 

·       The NET Officer confirmed when asked, that no police complaint was lodged by the complainant, that the Licensing Manager asked for the matter to be expedited due to the seriousness of the allegations.  That the online complaint form was not included in the report committee had before them.  In this form the complainant had alleged that the driver had threatened to kill her

·       The NET Officer confirmed when asked, that the report was seen by the AI the week before the hearing. There had not been time to arrange a formal interview

The Legal Advisor LJH advised that although the committee report recommended revocation of the licence, the Committee should not be considering any action at this stage.  The Committee must first hear from both the complainant and then AI after which they should make findings of fact on the balance of probabilities.  It is only if the complaint is upheld that the Committee should consider what action, if any, to take regarding AI’s licence.   If the Committee accept AI’s version of events, then no action would be appropriate.

PW commented that he was grateful for the point made as his client was facing a very serious allegation and sometimes it was more difficult for a driver to disprove a complaint made against him as opposed to the other way around.  The report almost seems to have pre-empted what the outcome would be.

The Committee then heard from the Complainant who gave her evidence via a video link

·       The Complainant reiterated the statement given in the report.

·       She took the cab near Urban Tiger and told the driver she would let him know where to stop. 

·       As the journey started she was on the phone to her friend.  When she asked driver to stop he did not hear her.  She asked him again but a little bit louder.  She then realised he was wearing head phones – he looked at her and said he wasn’t told where to stop.  He claimed there was no parking for him to stop. 

·       She then said he would not get a tip with his attitude to which the driver replied “did I ask for a fucking tip”. 

·       When she gets nervous she articulates with her hands.  She was looking at him in disbelief so smiling .  She then said to her friend she was not sure she should be paying for this driver.  He grabbed her wrist.  She was willing to pay.  She had £20 in her hand. 

·       She got out of the cab and left her pizza in the cab.  The driver then got out of the car and grabbed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.