Agenda item

To seek consideration of an application for the renewal of a Private Hire Driver Licence and to consider the fit and proper to do so

The Applicant was in attendance with a family member.

The Licensing Officer outlined the background to the application as follows:

• The applicant had held a PHD licence since 1993 which expired on 2^nd June 2019 and on renewal the DVLA check revealed a list of driving convictions detailed in the report.
• The most recent conviction dated 8^th October 2018 CD10 was not reported until the request for renewal was submitted.
• That the applicant had failed to advise the proper office of the conviction according to the terms of Council Policy.
• The PHV licence is due to expire in April 2020.
• The Committee were requested to consider whether KU was a ‘Fit & Proper’ person to hold a licence and to refuse the applicants request to depart from Council Policy.

The Applicant made the following presentation and answered questions put to him by the Committee:

• KU had been driving for 30years and that this was the first road traffic accident involving a cyclist.  On the day of the incident every effort was made to assist the cyclist and cooperate with police.
• KU drew member’s attention to the type of motoring convictions on his licence and asked them to note that this is the only offence relating to a person.
• KU had been out of work for 5 weeks and had a mortgage and family to support and was unable to do so if he was unable to run his business.
• KU explained that he understood that on conviction he had to advise the proper office and contended that he had done so.  KU was unsure when the conviction took place believing that it was in February or March 2019 and that it was reasonable to declare in May.
• KU confirmed that he worked well with the members of the public and received nothing but praise when working for the local hospital taking patients to appointments and returning them home.
• KU was aware that on making an application for renewal the relevant checks would reveal all information relating to driving convictions and other offences therefore had no intention to conceal the information but believed it was appropriate to advise following conviction.
• He asked the Committee to be lenient with him

The Applicant and Licensing Officer left the room to allow Committee to make their decision.

Committee carefully considered all the information presented together with Council Policy.

Resolved:

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

To revoke the PH Vehicle Licence of KU on the ground contained in section 60(c) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 namely any other reasonable cause.

Reasons for Decision

The Committee noted that KU had recently been convicted of an offence of driving without due care and attention involving a collision with a cyclist that occurred in October 2018.  The Conviction was dated May 2019 and KU had failed to promptly declare this to the Council in accordance with his PHD licence conditions. 

It was also noted that there were a number of speeding offences over a period of time which demonstrated a pattern of offending behaviour giving rise to more cause for concern.

The offence of driving without due care and attention is classed as a major traffic offence under the Council’s policy which usually recommends a period of at least 6 months free from conviction before an application will be entertained.  In KU’s case, he had been unable to satisfy the Members that he should be treated as an exception to the Policy.

The Committee are not required to take into account the personal circumstances of the Applicant since the primary concern is protection of the public and the driving standards of the Applicant.

It was considered there was reasonable cause to revoke the PH Vehicle licence since KU was the only person insured to drive the vehicle.

The standards of driving of KU had fallen well below the standards the Council is entitled to expect from those whom it licenses.

The Applicant and Licensing Officer returned to the room to receive the decision.