Agenda item

The Licence Holder was in attendance with his Legal Representative and three supporters.

The Neighbourhood Enforcement Team (NET) Officer outlined the background to the investigation as follows:

·         The investigation had followed a complaint by a member of the public that the Licence Holder had failed to safely and securely transport a wheelchair using passenger during a journey from Bristol Temple Meads to Bristol Royal Marriot Hotel and as a result of this, the wheelchair had fallen over and the passenger bumped his head and had to attend the Accident and Emergency (A&E) department at the hospital for a CT scan;

·         The Licence Holder’s current licence was due to expire in 2020;

·         On 7 July 2019 the complaint had been received via Council’s website;

·         The Neighbourhood Enforcement Officer had spoken to the complainant and due to the fact that she did not live locally, the Complainant had offered to take witness statements and forward them to the NET Team via email;

·         She had studied the CCTV footage from Bristol Temple Meads and had documented what she saw, a copy of which had been circulated to all parties;

·         The Licence Holder had attended an interview with NET officers accompanied by his Legal Representative where a prepared statement was read out and the Licence Holder exercised his right to not answer any of the questions other than to confirm that he did know how to secure a wheelchair and he had attended the Gold Standard Course.  The Licence Holder had also denied the alleged conversation with the Complainant and her husband outside the Royal Marriot Hotel and confirmed that he had not reported the incident to the police.  The interview was paused twice at the request of the Legal Representative and after the second time, the Licence Holder exercised his right to withdraw from the interview;

·         The Licence Holder had been asked to bring his vehicle to the interview, but it was being repaired at the time in a garage and he brought it to the Licensing Office at a later date and successfully demonstrated how to secure a wheelchair;

·         The safety of the public was the overall concern of the Council and officers recommended that the Licence Holder should have his Driver’s Licence revoked as he could not be considered to be a fit and proper person to hold a licence due to his neglect of duty and causing an avoidable trauma to vulnerable passenger.

In response to questioning the NET Officer confirmed that the CCTV was not available for the Committee to view as the Council did not have the appropriate software but she had viewed it at Bristol Temple Meads and, as an authorised officer, had documented the film. 

The Witness gave the following account:

·         Her family were getting together in Bristol for the wedding of her son;

·         Her father was of delicate health, having undergone brain surgery in 2018, and he was currently in intensive care;

·         Her father had been looking forward to traveling to Bristol from his home in North Lincolnshire to spend time with his family and meet his great grandchild;

·         She had arranged for her mother and father to stay at the Marriot Royal Hotel and they had been accompanied on the train journey by her sister-in-law and niece;

·         Her family were not generally taxi users but they felt confident in getting a taxi from the train station to the hotel;

·         On her way to meeting her parents at the hotel, she had received a message from her mother to say that something had happened in the taxi, but they were on their way;

·         The taxi had pulled up outside the hotel and she was aware that something was wrong as her mother was looking pale and her father was holding his head.  When she asked the Driver what had happened he had said it was not his fault but she didn’t think she got a full description of what had happened;

·         Her husband had challenged the Driver and got his details, which he seemed reluctant to give.  The Driver had said that he should not have been working and was not properly trained;

·         Due to her father’s health problems and him being prescribed the drug, Apixiban, once she realised that he had suffered a bump to his head, she knew he had to go to A&E for a CT scan;

·         She accompanied her father to the hospital where they spent between 3pm and 10pm in A&E and he had a CT scan;

·         The incident would not have happened had her father been strapped in and it had been the last opportunity for her father to see his wider family due to his deteriorating health.

In response to questioning about the procedure for strapping in a wheelchair, the Licensing Policy Advisor confirmed that although there were differences for different vehicles, the wheelchair needed to be secured at 3 points and involved anchoring the vehicle, strapping the user in and engaging the brakes.

The Licence Holder’s Legal Representative asked the circumstances by which the witness statements were taken using a section 9 form and the Complainant confirmed that she has taken the statements following consultation with the NET Officer who had sent her the forms. 

The Committee’s Legal Advisor reminded all parties that the role of the Committee was to carry out the Council’s regulatory function and it was not a criminal process.  She confirmed that the Committee needed to make a decision on the facts of the case and the standard of proof was the civil one, namely on a balance of probabilities and unlike criminal proceedings, hearsay evidence was admissible. 

The Licence Holder’s Representative presented his case as follows:

·         He had been a Private Hire Driver since 1988 and a Hackney Carriage Licence Holder since 1999;

·         He had achieved the Gold Standard in 2015;

·         He had taken many wheelchair passengers;

·         Further evidence had been circulated to all parties supporting the Licence Holder, including a letter from the owner of the taxi companies which employed the Licence Holder and 6 letters containing character references and confirming that he had experience of transporting wheelchair users;

·         At time of incident it was his turn to pick up passengers and there was a discussion with passengers about who to take and it was agreed that he take a party of 4 including a wheelchair user;

·         He denied being over-worked and miserable;

·         He pushed the wheelchair up the ramp and was followed by a female passenger;

·         He was intending to strap the wheelchair user in, but was told not to secure the passenger as he didn’t like to be strapped in and so he just applied the brakes of the wheelchair;

·         He dropped off 2 of the passengers at a Premier Inn and then took a U-turn to begin the journey to the Royal Marriot Hotel when he heard a noise in the back of the taxi.  At this point he stopped and saw the wheel chair had fallen over; 

·         He asked if the passengers were alright and they confirmed that they were and he continued the journey to the hotel;

·         At the hotel a male and female were waiting and the Licence Holder said the male was aggressive and asked for his details, although he wasn’t interested in taking his name and so he drove off;

·         He later received a call from the Taxi Company asking him to return to the hotel and that the passenger had experienced a brain haemorrhage.  He returned to the hotel and gave his details to the male, although he denied being asked questions about his training and claimed that the male was being aggressive. 

In response to a question about how the wheelchair was secured, the Licence Holder confirmed that it was not anchored and he had been told by the female passenger not to strap the male passenger in as he did not like it.  On further questioning as to whether the Licence Holder understood that it was his responsibility to ensure that the wheelchair user was secure, he responded that he did and it was the first time that he hadn’t done so and he had made a mistake in listening to the female passenger. 

The Committee’s Legal Advisor stated that although there was some discrepancy in relation to the accounts of the incident, there was no dispute over the fact that the wheelchair user had not been secured properly and the Committee needed to consider whether any action should be taken against the Licence Holder.  She reminded the Committee that any action should be proportionate to the incident in accordance with the relevant policies and guidance.

The Licence Holder’s Legal Representative summed up by asking the Committee to consider the length of time that he had been a taxi driver and that this was the first time that an incident such as this had happened.

At this point in the meeting the Licence Holder, his Legal Representative and supporters and the Neighbourhood Enforcement Officer withdrew from the meeting while the Committee considered the application.  They returned to the meeting to hear the decision.

RESOLVED

(1)   that there was reasonable cause to revoke the Licence Holder’s Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licence on the ground contained in section 61(1)(b) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 as the Council could no longer be satisfied that he was a fit and proper person to hold such a licence.  It was further determined that in the interests of public safety the revocation have  immediate effect in accordance with section 61(2B) of the same Act for the following reasons:

The Committee considered the oral evidence of the Witness, together with her written statement and those of other witnesses regarding the incident and evidence from the Investigating Officer.  The Committee found their versions of events to be credible and more reliable than that of the Licence Holder.

Even if the Licence Holder’s explanation was true, that the passenger asked him not to secure the wheelchair, it was unacceptable and grossly negligent for him not to do so.

The failure to properly secure a disabled passenger resulted in an accident whereby the passenger had to be taken to A&E.  This was a most serious case of neglect on the Licence Holder’s part.  Nor was there any remorse on the part of the Licence Holder.

In consequence the Committee could no longer be satisfied that the Licence Holder was a fit and proper person to hold a Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licence.  This incident on its own would be sufficient for the Committee to reach this finding.  However, the Committee also looked at the previous case history of the Licence Holder during his time as a licensed driver with the Council and had grave concerns about the pattern of misconduct over a period of time. 

The Committee therefore decided that there was “reasonable cause” to revoke the Licence Holder’s Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licence on the ground contained in section 61(1)(b) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

The Committee also considered that as the incident was of such a serious nature, in the interests of public safety the revocation should have immediate effect in accordance with section 61(2B) of the same Act.

(2)   That the Vehicle Licence should NOT be revoked, but the Licence Holder be reminded that he would no longer be licensed to drive it, although he could lease the vehicle to someone else.