Agenda item

To seek consideration of an application for the renewal of a Private Hire Driver Licence and whether the licence holder is fit and proper to hold one

The applicant was in attendance.

The Licensing Officer presented the report outlining the background to the application.

• The applicant had requested the renewal of both his Private Hire Driving Licence that expired 12^th June 2019 and the Private Vehicle Licence that expired on the 28^th March 2019.
• The Applicant had advised the proper office that the vehicle had to be repaired and requested an extension that expired on the 20^th June.
• On receipt of the application for the renewal of the PHD a DVLA search revealed a number of convictions that was detailed in the report totally 15 penalty points
• Committee were asked to refuse the application in line with Council policy.

The Applicant addressed the Committee:

• MA was asked to address the issue of the penalty points and those pertaining to failing to advise of the driver at the time of an offence.
• MA provided a background on his recent family difficulties resulting in him living in temporary accommodation.  This had resulted in the notifications of driving offences not coming to his attendance.  MA informed committee that he had given the appropriate notification, of the change of address, to both to the DVLA and Licensing Office.  He had attended court providing the details of the driver at the time of the offence but by then it was too late to share that information and therefore given the MS90 penalty charge. 
• MA when asked was unable to provide an explanation as to the sequence of offences in 2004.  MA explained that he had not been banned because when he attended the Magistrate Court he explained the exceptional hardship that would occur should he lose his licensing under totting up process.
• MA confirmed that he was now at a new address had advised all parties of this to avoid any future confusion.
• MA attention was brought to the additional evidence submitted that gave his previous address and asked to provide an explanation for this. 
• Committee noted that he was unable to supply an adequate explanation as to why the mortgage letter was addressed in that way.
• MA advised that his vehicle had been rented out to another driver to conduct business and that person held a PHVL.
• The vehicle licence had expired whilst the car was undergoing repairs but it had now been repaired and had passed the MOT test.
• MA had not made an application for the renewal of the Private Hire Vehicle Licence.

The Applicant together with the Licensing Officer left the room for the Committee to make its decision.

The Committee carefully considered the evidence presented and oral evidence received.

Resolved:

To refuse to renew the Private Hire Driver’s Licence of MA 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 MA was a fit and proper person to hold such a licence.

Reasons for Decision:

Committee considered the accumulation of offences that resulted in 15 penalty points on his licence; MA’s failure to disclose to the proper office on receiving the convictions; and the Committee noted with concern the unanswered questions about MA’s previous addresses noting that the letter from the mortgage company was addressed to MA at what is said to be a former address; that proper notice was not given of his brother driving the car; they accepted that he had suffered a loss of income as a result of not being able to drive.

Committee were reminded of its policy that a licensee should advise the council by the end of the next working day of any event that impacted their driving licence.  That the applicant had only applied for the renewal of his PHDL and therefore it is appropriate to consider whether MA was a ‘Fit & Proper’ person because of the convictions and the failure to inform contrary to policy.

The Council is entitled to take into account the number, type and frequency of this type of offence and under these circumstances the Council’s policy would usually recommend a period of 12 months off the road from the date of conviction.  But given MA did not disclose this information to the Council, which is a concern of itself, he should not be entitled to benefit from the policy not biting.

The applicant and licensing officer returned to the room where the decision was shared.