Agenda item

JM attended for this meeting and was accompanied by a friend (Mr Zaidi).

Dakota Ferrara, Senior Licensing Officer, introduced this report and made the following points:

·       The application was for the renewal of a Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licence which had been previously held but revoked

·       Members’ attention was drawn to the previous history of the licence holder as set out in the report as follows: (i) revocation of licence following confirmation at Crown Court of June 2001 offence of driving dangerously and not using the meter, (ii) September 2004 complaint by an elderly lady to whom he had delivered medication that he had scratched her hand and asked her out for a drink (iii) February 2008 – complaint of overcharging (iv) complaint of using a mobile phone without hands whilst driving (v) December 2010 – receiving a warning for an obstruction with a vehicle (vi) March 2018 – arrested for conspiring to supply drugs which he had failed to declare

·       The Sub-Committee also noted the following cautions that had been received in 2007 and 2012 for soliciting a woman for prostitution

·       They noted the most recent incident in 2019 when JM had refused to secure a wheelchair on his vehicle which had resulted in a  head injury. When this matter went to court, they upheld the decision to revoke it.

·       In line with current Bristol City Council following recent changes in 2021, officers recommended that the Committee refuse the application

The Panel received guidance from the Licensing Policy Adviser and Legal Adviser and noted the following:

·       this is a renewal application

·       JM did not currently hold a licence He can be considered as whether or not he is a proper person to hold a vehicle licence

·       JM was not applying for a drivers licence but for a vehicle licence. It was noted that this would enable him to rent out his vehicle to others with a drivers’ licence

·       The character of the individual was important in this instance. National standards say those holding Vehicle Licence must pose no risk to public and so maintain the safety benefits of regime. The Sub-Committee should therefore take the character of an individual into account when determining this application.

In presenting his case, JM and Mr Zaidi made the following points:

·       JM noted the difference between a driver and vehicle licence and has a clean DVLA licence

·       JM was requesting a renewal of a vehicle licence which can be driven by any driver who has a taxi licence

·       JM does not have a licence to drive but has finance on it. He is renting out to drivers to help finance it. He understands that it is Important to make sure he complies with all Bristol City Council policies

·       Bristol City Council are requested to take account of the applicant’s situation. There are lots of similar cases where people made an investment to buy a vehicle and get someone else to drive it

·       The Sub-Committee were requested to renew his vehicle licence as his suitability as a driver was not relevant in this case

In response to questions from members of the Sub-Committee, JM and Mr Zaidi made the following points:

·       JM always made sure that safety was taken into account. He had carried out all relevant courses concerning safety in respect of wheelchairs and circulated a certificate for a course he had recently undertaken for wheelchair accessibility and safeguarding passengers

·       Since 2019, JM had been faced with a difficult situation due to the lockdown caused by the pandemic. He had tried to improve his skill and make sure he does not make a similar mistake again. He had also received advice from local organisations (such as his local mosque) and had already submitted character references. He had tried to compensate for his mistake. Christine Morgan, Gold Standard Trainer, can vouch for this. JM was currently leasing out his vehicle

·       JM acknowledged that he may have carried out some  in the past and had paid the price for it. Since 2015, this was the last time accepted he was a fit and proper person and he had been granted a licence. Whilst the 2019 incident was unfortunate, no complaint had been made against him since then. He pointed out that if this incident had not happened, he would not be in front of the Sub-Committee today.

·       JM was attending to show that he had changed. The Sub-Committee were urged to give him a chance with the knowledge that if he repeats an offence, action can then be taken against him. Character references show he is a changed person.

·       JM apologises to the Licensing Policy Adviser for the allegations made in an e-mail against her and withdrew these.

After making their deliberations, the Sub-Committee advised both parties of their decision as follows:

RESOLVED (unanimously) – that in accordance with section 60(1)(c) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 there is “reasonable cause” to refuse the application by JM to renew his Hackney Carriage Vehicle licence.

Reasons

The DFT Guidance enables the Council to take into account the character and suitability of an individual applicant as well as the suitability of the vehicle when determining an application for a vehicle licence.  There is also High Court authority that enables the decision maker to take into account whether an individual is a fit and proper person to hold a vehicle licence as well as a driver licence.  Nor does an individual have to be convicted of a criminal offence in order for there to be “reasonable cause” to suspend or refuse to renew a vehicle licence.

The Council’s policy (para.23) which adopts the National Standards also includes an expectation that the applicant for a vehicle licence is a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

Although we acknowledge that you have not been convicted of any criminal offence your track record as a licensee with the Council is extremely poor whereby you have been found wanting concerning your conduct towards passengers and your safety as a driver.

We Echo the findings of the Magistrates’ Court in a very recent appeal that was heard on 30 November 2021.

“The incident causing injury to the wheelchair user was

significant. We do not discount evidence of witnesses who say other fares

were carried safely but this one incident shows that there is not a safe service

for everyone. We appreciate your willingness to learn from mistakes but

these should not have been made in the first place. We therefore find that you are not a fit and proper person to hold a licence”

Even though you are currently leasing the vehicle to a third party the committee is not satisfied that you should be entrusted in ensuring that third parties adhere to the rules.

There is also High Court authority whereby the financial circumstances of the individual are an irrelevant consideration as the main focus of the Council is protection of the public and ensuring that those who have the benefit of a licence are upstanding members of the community.