Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED – that Councillor Richard Eddy be elected for the duration of the meeting.

Councillor Richard Eddy welcomed everyone to the meeting and reminded all attendees of the emergency evacuation procedure.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Amal Ali.

It was agreed that Councillor Richard Eddy should write on behalf of the Committee to wish Councillor Ali well and to send her the Sub-Committee’s wishes.

ACTION: Councillor Richard eddy

There were no Declarations of Interest.

To confirm the above meetings as a correct record for signing by the Chair.

RESOLVED – that the minutes of the meetings held on 14^th December 2021 and 25^th January 2022 be confirmed as a correct record and signed.

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

Any member of the public or Councillor may participate in Public Forum.  The detailed arrangements for so doing are set out in the Public Information Sheet at the back of this agenda.  Public Forum items should be emailed to democratic.services@bristol.gov.uk and please note that the following deadlines will apply in relation to this meeting:-

Questions - Written questions must be received 3 clear working days prior to the meeting.  For this meeting, this means that your question(s) must be received in this office at the latest by 5pm on Tuesday 15^th February 2022.

Petitions and Statements - Petitions and statements must be received on the working day prior to the meeting.  For this meeting this means that your submission must be received in this office at the latest by 12 Noon on Monday 21^st February 2022.

Please note, your time allocated to speak may have to be strictly limited if there are a lot of submissions. This may be as short as one minute.

There were no Public Forum items.

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 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.

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 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 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act, as amended.

JM attended for this meeting and was accompanied by a friend (Mr Zaidi).

Dakota Ferrara, Senior Licensing Officer, introduced this report and made the following points:

·       The application was for the renewal of a Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licence which had been previously held but revoked

·       Members’ attention was drawn to the previous history of the licence holder as set out in the report as follows: (i) revocation of licence following confirmation at Crown Court of June 2001 offence of driving dangerously and not using the meter, (ii) September 2004 complaint by an elderly lady to whom he had delivered medication that he had scratched her hand and asked her out for a drink (iii) February 2008 – complaint of overcharging (iv) complaint of using a mobile phone without hands whilst driving (v) December 2010 – receiving a warning for an obstruction with a vehicle (vi) March 2018 – arrested for conspiring to supply drugs which he had failed to declare

·       The Sub-Committee also noted the following cautions that had been received in 2007 and 2012 for soliciting a woman for prostitution

·       They noted the most recent incident in 2019 when JM had refused to secure a wheelchair on his vehicle which had resulted in a  head injury. When this matter went to court, they upheld the decision to revoke it.

·       In line with current Bristol City Council following recent changes in 2021, officers recommended that the Committee refuse the application

The Panel received guidance from the Licensing Policy Adviser and Legal Adviser and noted the following:

·       this is a renewal application

·       JM did not currently hold a licence He can be considered as whether or not he is a proper person to hold a vehicle licence

·       JM was not applying for a drivers licence but for a vehicle licence. It was noted that this would enable him to rent out his vehicle to others with a drivers’ licence

·       The character of the individual was important in this instance. National standards say those holding Vehicle Licence must pose no risk to public and so maintain the safety benefits of regime. The Sub-Committee should therefore take the character of an individual into account when determining this application.

In presenting his case, JM and Mr Zaidi made the following points:

·       JM noted the difference between a driver and vehicle licence and has a clean DVLA licence

·       JM was requesting a renewal of a vehicle licence which can be driven by any driver who has a taxi licence

·       JM does not have a licence to drive but has finance on it. He is renting out to drivers to help finance it. He understands that it is Important to make sure he complies with all Bristol City Council policies

·       Bristol City Council are requested to take account of the applicant’s situation. There are lots of similar cases where people made an investment to buy a vehicle and get someone else to drive it

·       The Sub-Committee were requested to renew his vehicle licence as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Dakota Ferrara, Senior Licensing Officer, introduced this report and made the following points:

·       SM had held a licence in 2007 to 2009

·       SM’s licence had been renewed on 15^th December 2019. It had been revoked in March 2021 by PSP A Sub-Committee as a result of plying for hire in December 2020. SM had received a conviction for plying for hire and for being uninsured – neither of these were declared in his application

·       The Sub-Committee was reminded that applicants with multiple convictions were not regarded as suitable to drive in accordance with policy. In relation to an offence for dishonesty, the policy states that an applicant must not be given a licence for seven years

The Sub-Committee received the following advice from the Licensing Policy Adviser:

·       There had been a change of policy following new national standards. However, the March 2021 revocation of the licence had taken place prior to the new policy coming into effect

·       The Sub Committee cannot go behind the reasons for the conviction. However, they may want to hear from SM as to why the Sub-Committee should go against the policy and the steps he has taken to address the situation

·       Following the introduction of the new licensing standards, it was a normal expectation for someone with conviction as a result of one offence to be off the road for 6 months. If there was a conviction for more than one offence, the expectation was that they should be off the road for 2 years

SM made the following points to the Sub-Committee in support of his application:

·       Last year during the pandemic I had no customers and was struggling. I was also working with Uber

·       SM described the incident which had led to his conviction for playing for hire. He explained that it was an honest mistake. Since the road was blocked, he had to wait for customers and a person had got into his vehicle and refused to leave. The individual had asked about the cost for a fare to go to Emersons Green but had not paid for the journey. He was not aware when he was stopped by PC Quinton that he had committed an offence.

·       SM explained that he had pled guilty to the offence as he was advised that this would result in him receiving a reduced fine. Whilst he subsequently appealed this decision, the process had taken a long time

The Sub-Committee noted that evidence from Uber showed that a job came through after this incident and that the evidence from PC Quinton contradicted SM’s account of it.

In response to further questions from the Licensing Adviser and the Sub-Committee, SM made the following points:

·       He had to apply for other jobs whilst he waited for the licence to become available when the suspension period ends. However, he continued to serve the public as a driver and learn from his mistakes. He needed to keep his licence to look after his family

·       He had not done anything  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

It was noted that this item would be rescheduled to be held at a future date to allow an interpreter to be arranged for the applicant.

The Sub-Committee noted that the applicant was currently in prison and would therefore not be attending for this item. Members agreed to continue with the hearing in his absence.

Members noted from the report that the applicant had been convicted of offences of sexual exploitation, offences of indecency and exploitation. They noted that in this instance Council policy advice recommended that anyone convicted of such offences should never be granted a licence as they were not a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

Following deliberations, the Sub-Committee

RESOLVED (unanimously) – that the application be refused as the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 10am on Tuesday 19^th April 2022.

The Sub-Committee noted that the next meeting is scheduled to be held at 10am on Tuesday 19th April 2022.