Modern.gov Breadcrumb
- Agenda item
Modern.gov Content
Agenda item
SM NET REPORT APPLICATION FOR THE RENEWAL OF A PRIVATE HIRE DRIVER LICENCE
- Meeting of Public Safety and Protection Sub-Committee A, Tuesday, 15th June, 2021 10.00 am (Item 8.)
- View the reasons why item 8. is restricted
Minutes:
It was confirmed by the clerk that additional references had been submitted and circulated to the committee on the day.
The Neighbourhood Enforcement Officer introduced the report and drew attention to the following:
· This is an application for the renewal of a Private Hire Driver licence. On 14 October 2020 the enforcement team received an email from a safeguarding officer at BCC regarding an overcharging complaint from a member of the public. This is a potential criminal offence under taxi regulations.
· On 10 October 2020, SM is alleged to have overcharged a customer £2.50, then supplied a personal number for future bookings. The customer complained to the operator.
· PC Quinton earmarked the vehicle for a test purchase. PCQ stopped the vehicle, whereupon SM said he was not working. The passenger confirmed it was a taxi journey and that he did not book through an operator. SM said he was giving a friend a lift home and was not working. PCQ asked SM if he was plying for hire, but he maintained he was giving a lift.
· PCQ issued a fixed penalty for driving without insurance and referred the matter to PSP. A Background check has revealed historical complaints about tailgating and speeding.
The appellant gave the following evidence:
· There was a complaint about alleged tailgating two years ago. This was resolved by SM speaking to licensing officers. This was a historical event, and he was reissued a license regardless of this in May 2020.
· SM has been a licensed driver since 2008 and up to 2019 he has no complaints on record. SM was not contacted about historical events prior to PSP referral so was unable to put his side of the story forward.
· There is a fine line between the overcharging and asking for a tip, i.e. rounding up costs by a small amount. The person making the complaint was not the passenger and did not see the transaction of this alleged overcharging.
· The committee has received references that paint SM as a reliable and trustworthy driver. We understand that earlier complaints are of lesser interest compared to the incident in May.
· SM did accept a pre-booking not through an operator. The BCC policy is clear, but we would ask you to consider his very good record. 2 more recent complaints did not need action and this incident in May is out of character.
· These are very hard times for the taxi trade, and this was not plying for hire in the traditional sense. We would ask the committee to give a formal warning rather than action.
· SM has taken this matter seriously at all stages and has contacted the NET and PCQ on several occasions on his own initiative.
After questioning from the committee, the following information was confirmed
· That SM’s insurance would have been invalidated during this journey as the terms of the licence were breached.
· That SM has not yet accepted a Fixed Penalty Notice, but the notice period has not expired. The committee can give weight to the information presented regardless of whether the FPN is accepted.
· SM’s rear plate was not displayed, the front plate was displayed. SM said that he found it difficult to attach plates to the rear of the vehicle but now had proper fixtures.
· Complaints about driver conduct may not be significant enough for action per se, but it does bring a driver to the attention of the authorities, resulting in more checks in future or the committee considering conduct at a hearing.
· SM explained someone who was not the passenger contacted him. That person was a previous customer who then requested a ride for someone else. It was essentially a pre-booked journey not through an operator. This is not plying for hire in the traditional sense. It was not an on street pick up, SM was acting as an operator without a licence.
· SM said that he and the customer did not agree a fee, but that if he was offered something, he would take it. SM views the transaction as a favour. PCQ confirmed no payment was received as SM was stopped during transport.
· PCQ said that in difficult situations like lockdown, more rule breaking is likely. SM has received few complaints over 10 years which reduces the risk element.
· SM lost his regular airport job due to lack of business. He has tried to work as much as possible during lockdown including odd jobs.
Decision
The Committee, having heard from the Neighbourhood Enforcement Officer, the Applicant and the Applicant’s representative determined to refuse to renew the Private Hire Driver Licence under section 61(1)(b) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, namely any other reasonable cause.
The Council’s guidelines on the relevance of criminal behaviour - General Policy (referred to hereafter as “the Policy”) affords a general guide on the action which might be taken where convictions, cautions and endorsable fixed penalties are disclosed, or where offending behaviour is proved to the satisfaction of the Council and reference to conviction should be construed accordingly.
The Committee made a finding of fact on the balance of probabilities that the Applicant took a direct booking that wasn’t booked through a licenced private hire operator as required which amounts to an offence under section 46 of the Town and Police Clauses Act 1847 or section 46 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act 1976. The Committee heard the submissions from the Applicant’s representative about the matter not falling within plying for hire in the usual sense but were satisfied that other sections of the legislation made it an offence to take the booking without a private operator’s licence.
The Committee notes that there were other matters on the record which they are entitled to take into account but the most weight was given to the May 2021 matter for taking a direct booking not via a private hire operator and thereby invalidating the insurance.
The Council’s Policy on the relevance of criminal behaviour states that a serious view is taken for convictions under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 when deciding whether an applicant is to be treated as a fit and proper person. In particular, an applicant will normally be refused a licence where (s)he has been convicted of an offence under the Acts (where offending behaviour of proved to the satisfaction of the Council reference to conviction should be construed accordingly) at any time during the 6 months preceding the application or has more than one conviction within the last 2 years preceding the date of the application. The driving with no insurance matter is covered under traffic offences in the Policy which was also considered by the Committee when making the decision.
The Committee is not satisfied that the Applicant is a fit and proper to hold a licence at this time or that there is any exceptional circumstances that would justify departure from the Council’s policy.