Agenda item

The driver (AT) was in attendance, as was his legal representative (FW). An interpreter arranged through the Council’s translation and interpreting service was also in attendance (OA) as requested by AT. PC Quinton (PCQ) from Avon and Somerset Constabulary was in attendance.

The Neighbourhood Enforcement Team (NET) Officer introduced the report and drew attention to the following:

·       That AT holds a PHD licence expiring October 2021 and a PHV licence expiring February 2021. AT is the only person insured for this vehicle.

·       On 21 October 2020, PC Quinton contacted the NET in regards to a number of offences. This included: a vehicle inspection notice for a number of mechanical faults, failing to comply with his licence conditions, causing an obstruction on Park Street, his vehicle having defective tyres that were considered to be dangerous, smoking in his vehicle, driving in a pedestrian zone through a sign prohibiting entry, keeping his engine running whilst not in the vehicle (engine idling) and failing to display private hire vehicle plates and have his second private hire badge as required.

·       AT has a number of historical offences and allegations against him including: a battery conviction, a conviction of plying for hire and no insurance, watching a film while driving, using abusive language towards a passenger and obstruction of a driveway.

The applicant gave the following evidence:

·       FW stated that AT denies the offences listed in 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5 and 3.6. In regards to 3.4 (smoking in a licenced vehicle), FW said that AT was not carrying passengers at the time so the offence was not relevant. AT himself said that everything in the NET report is false.

·       FW said that AT denies watching a film while driving and the historical complaint of swearing at customers and that AT never uses abusive language. In regards to the battery conviction, FW said that this was AT defending himself against someone who had become aggressive due to AT refusing to lend him money.  AT elaborated on this incident and said it was in 2009 and is the only criminal conviction on his record. 

·       FW said that he had met AT as a customer a month ago, that AT was 45 minutes late and appeared disorientated as he was on prescription drugs due to stress and difficulty sleeping. AT sends his mother £500 per month and pays £1500 a month in family support to his divorced wife and children. He also works occasionally as a builder. A suspension will mean he cannot drive, which would present financial hardship. AT intends to take legal action against the police. 

After questioning from the committee, the following information was confirmed:

·       AT has been prescribed Amitriptyline for stress and sleep problems. Officers said that some prescription medicines may affect the user’s ability to drive and should be declared to the licensing office as per the licensing conditions.

·       AT said that he believes he is being unfairly targeted by the police. PC Quinton said that all incidents in the report have happened as part of his monitoring of the 4,500 drivers in the area. AT works heavily in the centre so PCQ will see him more often than other vehicles with a wider range. On all of these occasions, PCQ has stopped AT because there was a reasonable cause to do so, they were not random checks. 

·       Officers confirmed that smoking in a licenced vehicle is an offence and is not permitted at any time, regardless of whether there are passengers in the vehicle. 

·       AT and FW said they intended to sue the police for loss of earnings caused by the suspension of his licence. It was confirmed by licencing officers that AT’s licence was never suspended. AT said that PCQ contacted his taxi operator after the Park Street incident and told them to suspend him. PCQ confirmed that he had discussed the incident with the operator, but that he had made no recommendations of suspension, he had no power to do so, and it was a decision taken solely by the operator.

·       AT said that he left Park Street after telling PCQ that he needed to pray. PCQ confirmed that this was not the case, and as per the bodycam footage submitted, and AT gave no explanation before driving off.  

·       There was discussion about the bald tyre incident as the report said that AT did not drive the vehicle to the test station. AT said that he had not driven the car for 4 months prior to this incident and that his mechanic drove the car to the inspection. AT said that the tyres were in good condition before he gave the car to the mechanic, who switched the tyres for poor condition ones before submitting the vehicle for inspection.

·       Regarding the offence of driving in a pedestrian zone, AT said that he was delivering food, that PCQ told him not to move his vehicle and there were other vehicles present committing the same offence. PCQ confirmed that the bodycam footage showed this account was not accurate.

·       It was confirmed that the battery conviction was not up for debate as it had been proven by the courts and the Committee could not go behind a conviction, although the committee would consider how much time had elapsed since the conviction.

·       During summing up, AT said the reports were designed to incriminate him and that PCQ unfairly singles him out and has people following him. AT then said he did not dispute the evidence in the report but that it had been gathered unlawfully.

The Committee withdrew to deliberate on their decision.

RESOLVED (unanimous decision) Private Hire Driver Licence and Private Hire Vehicle Licence are revoked.

The Committee had cause for concern that AT has shown a pattern of offending and inappropriate behaviour and a disregard for authority, the law and public safety and considered the totality of his behaviour to be a danger to public safety and protection. Furthermore, the Committee heard that AT was taking prescription medication which could cause drowsiness and affect his ability to operate a vehicle, which gave rise for further concern as he did not inform the licensing team as required to do so by licensing conditions.

AT presented no mitigation or information to persuade the Committee to depart from the Council’s policy, or persuaded the Committee that he was a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The Committee, in considering the report, relevant policies and legislation and the evidence presented, could not be satisfied that AT was a fit and proper person to hold a Private Hire Driver License and consequently found that there was reasonable cause to revoke it. There was also reasonable cause to revoke the Private Hire Vehicle Licence especially as AT was the only person insured to drive it.