Agenda item

PC Quinton (PCQ) was present for this item.

The Licensing Officer introduced the report and drew attention to the following:

·       This committee is to consider whether action should be taken against SM. His current Private Hire Driver’s license is due to expire in May 2021. He also holds a Private Hire Vehicle licence due to expire in March 22. SM was previously a Hackney Carriage Driver, but this licence expired in March 2020.

·       PCQ had stopped SM’s vehicle as part of a test purchase with a plain-clothes PCSO acting as a passenger. PCQ asked SM for his badges as they were not being displayed, 3 were produced, but only 1 was valid.

·       The PCSO confirmed that SM had agreed to transport him for £9. SM confirmed during the stop that he was plying for hire. Now SM says that it was a mistake and that he thought the PCSO was “Zack”, another booking received via Uber.

·       Upon inspection of the vehicle, PCQ found defects with the vehicle lights.

·       SM maintains that he was confused, that he thought the PCSO was Zack and after he realised the error, he did not want to stop the journey for the PCSO.

·       Uber confirmed that the booking for Zack was made after the PCSO was picked up.

·       The Court date is set for 6 July 2021. PCQ offered a fixed penalty disposal but this was not responded to. The committee should consider whether SM is fit and proper to hold a licence after this incident.

The applicant gave the following evidence:

·       SM has been driving professionally for 16 years. He has experienced no problems with council previously and has no points on his licence. He has no criminal offences on record either. 

·       SM said he intends to plead guilty on the issue of plying for hire. It was very difficult to get work during lockdown. He agreed to pick up the PCSO for £9. SM said that he had some serious family problems to deal with, including relatives dying from Covid. SM said he did not know why he picked up the PCSO, his mind was occupied and he did not even get the money up front.

·       SM said he did not believe it was fair to do undercover policework on drivers in these circumstances. 

·       Regarding the car defects, he received a vehicle inspection notice from PCQ related to the lights. He did not notice there was an issue with the lights before he drove that day. After he received the notice, he repaired the car immediately.

·       He forgot to wear his ID badges as this was his first job on that day.

·       During his summing up, SM said that this was during a particularly hard time where his family is facing financial hardship. He did not get a job after 2 hours of starting his shift. He reiterated his previously clean record. 

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

·       One offence was driving without insurance. It was confirmed that SM only had insurance for acting as a private hire driver. During this incident he had picked up someone without pre-booking and therefore the insurance was not valid as he was plying for hire without the appropriate licences in place. 

·       The vehicle has since passed a vehicle inspection, so the necessary repair work to the lights has been carried out.

·       SM picked up the PCSO at 0150, the Uber record shows a booking for Zack at 0151. This is a very short time window, so members wanted to know whether this could have been an honest mistake. The GPS data supplied to PCQ by Uber shows that the vehicle was carrying the PCSO when the Uber booking was made.

Decision

1.     That the PHD licence of SM be revoked on the ground contained in section 61(1)(b) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 namely “any other reasonable cause”.

2.     That the PHV licence of SM be suspended for a period of 6 months on the ground contained in section 60(1)(c) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 namely “any other reasonable cause”.

Reasons for Decision

The Committee did not accept that SM had made an innocent mistake since his explanation was at odds with the evidence PC Quinton had obtained from Uber and the manner in which the PCSO had approached him and spoken to him was not conducive with an Uber booking because the driver would not need to negotiate a fare at the pick-up point.  Nor was there any indication that SM had made any checks as to the name of the PCSO before allowing him to get into the vehicle, which would be expected if SM genuinely believed the PCSO to be his pre-booked fare.  This was a situation where SM had been presented with an opportunity which he had taken advantage of.

The Committee takes a dim view where PHD’s unlawfully ply for hire because not only does it deprive properly licensed hackney carriage drivers of their trade but it also places the public at risk since the use of the vehicle means that it will not be insured.  This, together with the other matters PC Quinton discovered meant that the conduct of SM had fallen well below the standards the Council is entitled to expect from those whom it licences.

The usual policy starting point for offences of plying for hire and no insurance would be a period of 6 months without a licence.  The members considered that there was reasonable cause to impose a suspension in respect of both the PHD and PHV licences held by SM but since there was less than 6 months left to run on the PHD licence (which was due to expire on 14 May 2021), the PHD licence would instead be revoked.  SM had not put forward any reasons as to why a departure from Council policy should be made in his particular case.