Agenda item

Report of an application for the renewal of a Private Hire Driver Licence and an existing Private Hire vehicle licence to consider if he is fit and proper person

The Applicant was in attendance.

The Licencing Officer introduced the report handing over to PC Quinton to present the evidence.

• The applicant had made an application for the renewal of his private hire driving licence that had expired on the 15^th June 2019 and on conducting the preliminary checks it came to light that the applicant had been stopped on two occasions for allegedly plying for hire.
• The visual video evidence could not be viewed without the consent of the members of public captured in the video.  The committee was able to hear audio recording of the approach made to the applicant by the Officer.
• The first incident took place on the 3^rd December 2017 Queens Road Clifton and the second on 9^th June 2019 near DoJo Nightclub.  The matters are fully detailed in the report.
• 3^rd December incident: DS was observed picking up someone in the area; PC Quinton explained he was in an unmarked car therefore had to call for assistance to pull the car over.  When interviewed the passenger explained that he was told by the driver to say he was a friend but that was not the case.  He said he had never met the driver before
• A statement had been taken from the passenger which is in the bundle
• In interview DS claimed he did know this person and that the passenger was frightened which is why he said he did not know him
• PC Quinton explained that the decision not to prosecute the matter was due to it being one word against the other and the passenger having consumed alcohol.  On a criminal standard, the allegation might be difficult to prove but the Committee were entitled to look at the evidence on the civil standard, namely a balance of probabilities
• That second incident took place outside Dojos nightclub and centred around DS assertion that he had been asked by his friend inside the club to take home a girlfriend.  DS said he assumed the person who got into the car was that person and proceeded to drive off.
• It was further alleged by the female passenger that DS had been given £20 as she entered the car to cover the cost of the journey to Bishopsworth but DS denied receiving any cash from her.
• In respect of the incident on the 9^th June the witness was not prepared to attend court so there was not enough evidence to submit a file to the Crown Prosecution Office.  Originally the witness was prepared to come to court because she was unhappy that she had lost her money but had become stressed about the prospect of giving evidence
• The matter of the £20 was left unresolved.
• PC Quinton said that on the occasions he had dealt with DS, DS had always been polite and courteous so there was no issue with his general conduct

The Applicant addressed the Committee

• The first incident on Queens Rd happened when a friend who had lost his wallet was my passenger and I agreed to take him home after a night out.  DS objected to being pulled over by several police vehicles and believes this scared the passenger who then denied that they knew each other.
• DS explained that as a Sikh he could not see a friend in need and not provide assistance and that was the reason why he was in the car.  DS asserted that the way in which the police had pulled him over had scared the passenger into denying that they were friends.  That the passenger, whom he referred to as Jamie, was his friend and was prepared to be his witness in court if necessary but was never asked to do so.
• When asked by Committee for a further explanation, PC Quinton confirmed that he was in an unmarked vehicle and had to call for blue light assistance to pull the applicant over on the night.  The Officers on duty would not be aware of the reason for the request and would therefore attend as requested.
• Committee asked to see the video to be able to determine how many vehicles were involved in the stop.
• DS explained that the second incident involved whom he believed to be a girlfriend of a friend who was in the club.  He was asked to take her home after a falling out and assumed that the person who got into his vehicle was his friend’s girlfriend.
• DS felt that he had been targeted by PC Quinton and made a complaint on that basis.
• That he had not been able to work for some weeks and this was impacting him financially.  That he is a devout Sikh and would assist extended members of the community, family and friends when asked.  That PC Quinton would confirm that he had remained polite throughout both incidents, having no complaints about my behaviour towards him.
• DS advised commitment that he was Dyslexic but able to complete receipts when asked and therefore needed to work in this capacity as a driver.
• DS denied that he had taken any money from this passenger

The Applicant with the Licensing Officer and PC Quinton left the room to allow the committee to make a decision on the application.

Resolved:

.

1.      To refuse to renew the Private Hire Driver’s Licence of DS on the ground contained in section 61(1)(b) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 namely any other reasonable cause and that the Council could no longer be satisfied that DS was a fit and proper person to hold such a licence

2.      To refuse to renew the Private Hire Vehicle Licence of DS on the ground contained in section 60 (c) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 namely any other reasonable cause

Reasons for Decision

On a balance of probabilities the Committee believed the version of events put forward by both PC Quinton and the two passengers who werein the Applicant’s vehicle at the material times.  Particularly, after having listened to the audio footage of both incidents.  It was therefore decided that on both occasions it was more probable than not that DS had plyed for hire and in so doing he would not have been insured in respect of the third party risks in respect of that particular use of the vehicle.  It was also decided that DS had probably taken £20 from the passenger in respect of the second incident and had refused to return it.  Nor did he have his badges on him.

These are akin to offences of plying for hire and no insurance.  Plus there is the aggravating feature of taking money from a passenger and not returning it.

The Council’s policy affords a general guide on the action which might be taken where convictions, cautions and endorsable fixed penalties are disclosed, or where offending behaviour is proved to the satisfaction of the Council and reference to conviction should be construed accordingly.

The offences of plying for hire under the Town Police Clauses Act 1976 are taken very seriously by the Council since it is a widespread problem in the Bristol area in that it places the public at risk and deprives properly licensed Hackney Carriage Driver’s of their livelihood.

In particular, an applicant will normally be refused a licence where (s)he has been convicted of an offence under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 at any time during the 6 months preceding the application or has more than one conviction within the last 2 years preceding the date of the application.

In this case, two incidents had occurred within an 18 month period.

Having no insurance is classed as a major traffic offence under the policy.  Where there is more than one conviction for this type of offence within the last 5 years a refusal is recommended.

Taking into account all of the above circumstances the Council could no longer be satisfied that Mr Singh was a fit and proper person to hold a PH Driver’s licence.

It was also decided that the application to renew the vehicle licence should be similarly refused in view of the fact that Mr Singh is the only person insured to drive the vehicle for private hire purposes.

Cllr Jo Sergeant left the room