Agenda item

The driver and his representative SZ were in attendance. DR presented as a character witness at the appropriate point in the meeting.

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

·       The last time JM appeared at committee, the said the committee determined that he would need to demonstrate that he was fit and proper person since the incident occurred. There are 14 character references and 2 qualifications submitted by JM however they were completed prior to the incident.

·       The revocation of his license was due to his failure to secure a wheelchair passenger, resulting in serious injury.

·       The licensing officer advised, for JM’s information that the current criminal convictions policy was under review and the council is likely to adopt an amended one in the next few months. Part of this policy is that individuals with sexual offences cannot be licensed. If the committee is minded to grant a licence today, it may have to be reconsidered in a few months as JM has two cautions for sexual offences. However, a decision today should not be based on that future policy.

The applicant’s representative gave the following evidence:

·       JM has been a taxi driver for 32 years and a Hackney Carriage Driver since 1999. He has made a few mistakes during this time and has paid the price. From 2015 to 2019 he behaved himself and committed no offences. 

·       In 2019 JM lost his licence and has not offended since then. Incident in 2019 JM failed to secure a disabled wheelchair property, which resulted in the loss of his licence. This was a mistake with no malice.

·       Last time the committee did not make a determination. Advice was given that he should wait 12 months since the revocation before reapplying. It has now been 18 months since the incident. He deserves a second chance. The applicant submitted 14 character references. SZ believes that JM fits the criteria of a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

·       The references are from a variety of individuals and organisations. He has been helping people during lockdown. 

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

·       The committee reiterated that JM would need to show remorse for his actions and demonstrate how his character has changed since the incident. JM said he was sorry that it had happened, and he would never do anything like that again. He has not been able to work for 18 months which has put strain on his family. 

·       Since the last PSP meeting of July 2020, JM has been helping transport disabled people during Covid, and doing deliveries via the Mosque to help isolated people.

·       DR appeared as a character witness for JM. He has known JM from working with him on rail replacement services and was always strapped in properly. JM was part of a team at GWR / First to support the disabled. DR thought that this was a mistake and an isolated incident.

·       The committee asked whether JM had undertaken any kind of courses or training to extend or refresh his skills since the revocation. He has undertaken marshalling experience at the mosque to help others during Covid and did training to handle funerals. Has also done training with charities to drop food and help isolated people during Covid. It has been difficult to source official courses during lockdown.

Decision

That JM’s application for the grant of a HCD licence be refused in accordance with section 59 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 in that the Committee were not satisfied he was a fit and proper person to hold such a licence.

Reasons for Decision

JM’s HCD licence had been revoked by this committee in September 2019 following a very serious incident whereby JM had failed to secure an elderly passenger’s wheelchair in his HC vehicle resulting in the wheelchair toppling over and the passenger having to be taken to the BRI as he had sustained an injury to his head.  JM’s conduct on this occasion had been found to be, at the very least, grossly negligent but his demeanour and attitude towards the passengers had also been found wanting. The Council’s committee resolved that this complaint, on its own, was sufficient to give rise to “reasonable cause” to revoke JM’s licence but the history of previous complaints against JM and various revocations of his licence gave rise to a greater cause for concern and demonstrated a pattern of inappropriate behaviour over a period of time.  It was further considered that due to the seriousness of the incident, it was in the interests of public safety to revoke the licence with immediate

JM appealed against this revocation to Bristol Magistrates Court and his appeal was heard in January 2020 where it was dismissed and he was ordered to pay costs of £1,449.00.

Almost immediately following his unsuccessful appeal, JM applied for the grant of a HCD licence on 29 January 2020.  This application was considered by the members of this committee at a meeting on 26 May 2020 when it was unanimously decided that it was too soon for JM to apply for restoration of his licence and that no determination would be made on this occasion.  The Committee did not consider it appropriate to determine this matter without additional evidence that JM had taken a proactive approach to demonstrate that he was a fit and proper person to hold a licence and that references alone were unlikely to be sufficient. The Committee considered that a period of 12 months would be a starting point and would consider any further information that JM submitted after this time.

Mr Mohammad had been given advice following the meeting of 26 May 2020 that, as detailed in the minutes of the meeting, references alone were unlikely to be sufficient to demonstrate that he is a fit and proper person. JM however requested that his application be placed before this committee for determination.

The Committee noted that JM had since supplied 14 character references, a BTEC level 2 certificate in introduction to the role of the professional taxi and private hire driver (dated 17 October 2015) and Driving Standards Agency Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Test Assessment pass certificate (dated 18 August 2015). Although JM’s representative commented that JM had been undertaking a lot of work in the community and at the mosque during the pandemic, the qualifications he had produced were not recent and there was no evidence that he had made any efforts to undergo further training, such as disability awareness training.

JM’s representative further commented that the incident involving the disabled passenger was an isolated incident, there was no malice involved, that JM was very sorry and had paid the price for a very long time.  Notwithstanding Mr Z speaking very highly of JM and the impressive character references, there was no getting away from the fact that JM had one of the worst possible track records that the committee had seen of any licensee.  The incident involving the disabled passenger was, on its own, sufficient reason to call JM’s ability to hold a HCD licence into doubt, but the series of proven incidents and other complaints over a period of time, some of them very serious, gave rise to a grave cause of concern.

The Members asked themselves the following question: “without any prejudice and based on the information before us, would we allow a person for whom we care, regardless of their condition, to travel alone in a vehicle driven by this person at any time of day or night?”  On a balance of probabilities, the answer was a resounding “No” in which case JM should not hold a HCD licence.

The safeguarding of passengers is the overriding concern and does not require the committee to take into account the personal circumstances of the applicant which are irrelevant.  Unfortunately, JM had proven, time and time again that his conduct had fallen well below the standards the Committee is entitled to expect from those whom it licences.

It was therefore unanimously decided that JM was not a fit and proper person to hold a HCD licence and his application should be refused.