Agenda item

SS was present with his legal Representative, his witness and trade presentative.

The Chair welcome those present and outlined the process and procedure.

The Neighbourhood Enforcement officer (NEO) presented the revised report to Committee explaining that an incident had been reported on the 5^th September 2018.

The incident involved a cyclist and was witnessed.  Statements had been made by the cyclist and the witness but SS had not been interviewed about it.

Committee questioned why witnesses were not called with regards the cyclist incident.  The NEO explained that they were not available to attend due to their work schedule, the complainants were a Doctor and a Nurse with set work duties.

Committee agreed that NEO could outline the case against SS including the recent incident.

PC Quinton’s body camera footage of his operation on the 5^th August 2018 was shared.  It showed the passengers in the taxi who had agreed a fixed fare, to travel within the City boundary.

NEO asked Committee to determine whether SS was a fit and proper person to hold both licences.

SS Hackney Carriage Licence and his Private Hire Licence were both due to expire on the 12^th October 2018.

SS Representative was given the opportunity to answer the allegations and to take questions from Committee.

·       In respect of the incident with the cyclist SS denied the claim of erratic driving

·       SS did overtake but the distance between him and the cyclist was at least 3 meters.

·       That the cyclist was rude and aggressive to him in front of his wife and child, who were passengers in the car at the time.

·       Mobile records were produced that substantiated that at the time of the incident, SS was not on his mobile phone whilst driving.

·       The appellant called the police at the time of the incident and made contact with the licensing office to report the incident.

·       That he did complete a handwritten statement, whilst in the licencing office, adding the request for a camera at the bottom of the statement, following SS’s discussion with staff on duty in customer services.

·       The statement was shared.

·       He now discovered that his statement was not lodged as a complaint but a request for a CCTV camera.

·       Mr S’s wife was present and confirmed that she saw no reason why the cyclist became abusive to her husband and whilst she was in the vehicle with her child.  She was only aware of the cyclist when they starting banging on the side of the car.

·       The issue about SS’s mental wellbeing is not substantiated by any evidence.

·       SS emotional outburst was due to the fact that earlier in the year he had lost his son and brother.  SS accepts that the comment made in conversation with Officers were inappropriate but not a true reflection of his intention to harm himself.  

·       Committee were asked to note that these incidents happened at a time of extreme stress for the appellant.

·       The situation with the passengers and the fixed fare; the passengers insisted on the fixed sum; after the officer had stopped him the passengers apologised for putting in a position where he had a case to answer.

·       The Appellant believed in error that he could, within the city centre boundary, take a fare for a fixed sum. 

·       The Appellant apologised to Committee for these incidents and was extremely remorseful.

The Neighbourhood Enforcement Officer and the Appellant with his representatives and witness left the room to allow Committee to make its decision.

Decision

The Members considered very carefully all of the written and verbal evidence presented to them.

The legal Advisor outlined policy in respect of the allegations and that the sanction for breach was to impose a period of suspension on the licences or to revoke.  The Appellant’s licence was due to expire on the 12^th October 2018.  Members gave further consideration to imposing sanctions on a licence due to expire and the impact on the reapplication process & procedure.

Members considered that it was reasonable to consider both incidents and that the sanctions imposed would reflect this.   Members were satisfied that an incident did occur with the cyclist; that SS had been under some emotional stress due to recent family bereavements and that had caused the emotional outburst with Officers; that a fixed sum was agreed with passengers but that the sum actually charged was similar to the meter charge; that he cooperated fully with the Officer when he was pulled over.  That they would impose a sanction but at the end of the sanction SS would not be required to undertake any additional training.

Resolved: That SS’s Hackney Carriage Driver Licence and Private Hire Driver Licence be revoked for 2 months