Agenda item

SS was in attendance, accompanied his solicitor and an observer.

The complainants/witnesses KF and GT were in attendance.

The Neighbourhood Enforcement Officer introduced the report and summarised it for everyone. In response to questions, she clarified that in response to a previous complaint about SS no further action was taken and that in relation to this case there was no transcript of the interview given by SS available.

GT confirmed his written statement. In response to questions from Members he confirmed that he and his friends were not aggressive or argumentative. There had been an argument about the fare and the use of the meter. His friend W had been talking to SS with his head partially in the window when SS had driven off with his head in that position. He could not recall what words SS used but he had been shouting and aggressive.

GT then answered questions from SS’s solicitor highlighting the following:

• Although the incident had taken place in February and he had not made a statement until March, he had kept notes of the incident on his phone (The Neighbourhood Enforcement Officer confirmed that she had formatted the statement on the form but that all of the wording in the statement belonged to GT.)

• He is still in contact with his friends

• Prior to the incident they had tried to call an UBER but none were available

• When they asked SS for a price for the 3 stops he quoted £30 - £10 each

• When they challenged him about the price he dropped it to £25

• When they asked for his Badge Number he refused to provide it

• His voice was raised and he was aggressive

• GT had drunk 3 pints of beer throughout the evening

KF confirmed her written statement. She also confirmed that she had not drank alcohol and had heard the conversation GT had with SS who was aggressive.

KF then answered questions from SS’s solicitor highlighting the following:

• Her statement was made on 13th June 2019

• She had spoken to her friends about what had happened

• GT had spoken to the driver but he was not drunk

• She understood what the driver was saying

• GT had asked him to use the meter and he had refused

• She heard SS tell GT to Shut Up

• There had been no argument with SS

SS then put his version of events highlighting the following:

• He had been stopped and was asked for a price

• He stated that it would be between £15 and £25 for the 3 stops but that it would be on the meter

• The passenger he was in conversation with had become aggressive and abusive; he had feared for his safety

• He decided to drive off; the passenger he was speaking to did not have his head in the window

The Neighbourhood Enforcement Officer clarified that they had initially taken a statement from GT. KF had subsequently advised that she was willing to provide a statement and attend the Committee Meeting. W had not been asked to provide a statement.

The Legal Advisor reminded the Committee that it must make a decision on which version of events it believes on a balance of probabilities. If the complaint is made out, then the Committee must decide what action – if any – should be taken in regard to SS’s licence. The starting point in accordance with the Committee’s Policy would be a suspension of his Licence for a period of 6 months. The Committee may also take into account the possible aggravating features for alleged aggressive behaviour and driving away.

SS’s solicitor summed up his case highlighting the following:

• The complaint relates to 3 serious matters – Refusing a fare; Overcharging and Aggressive behaviour

• The Committee must be satisfied the case is made before it can consider any sanction against SS

• There is a clear dispute over what happened and what was said

• SS considers that he refused the fare for good reason

SS, his solicitor, the observer, the witnesses and the Neighbourhood Enforcement Officer left the room while the Committee made its decision.

Decision

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

The Members were of the view that the evidence of GT and KF was essentially truthful and that their version of events was more credible than SS’s.

On a balance of probabilities, SS did attempt to overcharge the complainants and refused to use the meter. There was also neglect to take a fare without reasonable excuse. The Committee were also of the view that SS had driven away whilst one of the complainant’s still had his head partially in the car via an open window.

The Members also found that SS behaved aggressively towards the potential passengers but as it is not clear what language was used, they do not accept he was abusive towards them. However, the conduct in question still falls well below the standard the Council is entitled to expect from its licensees.

They therefore considered that there was “reasonable cause” to take action on the licence.

The conduct is akin to offences under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 which under the Council’s policy a period of 6 months suspension is recommended. The Committee do not consider that there are any exceptional circumstances such to merit a departure from its Policy in this case. Therefore the Members decided that a suspension of 6 months is a consistent and proportionate response in this case.

Everyone returned to the room to hear the announcement of the decision.

Resolved – that the Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licence held by SS be suspended for a period 6 months on the ground contained in section 61(1)(b) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 namely any other reasonable cause.

Councillor Pickersgill left the Meeting and Councillor Tincknell took the Chair.