Agenda item

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

·       SM had held a licence in 2007 to 2009

·       SM’s licence had been renewed on 15^th December 2019. It had been revoked in March 2021 by PSP A Sub-Committee as a result of plying for hire in December 2020. SM had received a conviction for plying for hire and for being uninsured – neither of these were declared in his application

·       The Sub-Committee was reminded that applicants with multiple convictions were not regarded as suitable to drive in accordance with policy. In relation to an offence for dishonesty, the policy states that an applicant must not be given a licence for seven years

The Sub-Committee received the following advice from the Licensing Policy Adviser:

·       There had been a change of policy following new national standards. However, the March 2021 revocation of the licence had taken place prior to the new policy coming into effect

·       The Sub Committee cannot go behind the reasons for the conviction. However, they may want to hear from SM as to why the Sub-Committee should go against the policy and the steps he has taken to address the situation

·       Following the introduction of the new licensing standards, it was a normal expectation for someone with conviction as a result of one offence to be off the road for 6 months. If there was a conviction for more than one offence, the expectation was that they should be off the road for 2 years

SM made the following points to the Sub-Committee in support of his application:

·       Last year during the pandemic I had no customers and was struggling. I was also working with Uber

·       SM described the incident which had led to his conviction for playing for hire. He explained that it was an honest mistake. Since the road was blocked, he had to wait for customers and a person had got into his vehicle and refused to leave. The individual had asked about the cost for a fare to go to Emersons Green but had not paid for the journey. He was not aware when he was stopped by PC Quinton that he had committed an offence.

·       SM explained that he had pled guilty to the offence as he was advised that this would result in him receiving a reduced fine. Whilst he subsequently appealed this decision, the process had taken a long time

The Sub-Committee noted that evidence from Uber showed that a job came through after this incident and that the evidence from PC Quinton contradicted SM’s account of it.

In response to further questions from the Licensing Adviser and the Sub-Committee, SM made the following points:

·       He had to apply for other jobs whilst he waited for the licence to become available when the suspension period ends. However, he continued to serve the public as a driver and learn from his mistakes. He needed to keep his licence to look after his family

·       He had not done anything to break the law since then and had earnt his lesson

·       He stated that he understood that he could not just pick up a fare from anywhere. This was his first mistake and he would not do this again in future

·       He thought that the court would tell Bristol City Council about his convictions and was surprised when he heard that had not happened

SM requested the Sub-Committee to allow him to retain his licence as this had been his only job for a long time. If he were to receive a warning from the Sub-Committee, he would make sure that nothing like this ever happened again.

Following deliberations by the Sub-Committee, both parties were advised of the following decision:

RESOLVED (unanimously) – that the application for the grant of a Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted subject to all other elements of the fit and proper person test being satisfied.

Reasons

The applicant’s licence was revoked by the Committee on 23 March 2021 as findings of fact were made that on a balance of probabilities, he had plied for hire and in so doing would not have been insured in respect of that particular use of the vehicle.  The applicant has since been convicted of these offences and had received a fine and penalty points.  The applicant had therefore been “off the road” for almost 11 months and the Committee were of the view that he had learned his lesson as a result of the incident.

He had failed to fully disclose the details of his convictions on his application form but the members did not believe this to be a deliberate omission on his part in that he believed the Court would have told the Council about the convictions.  It was not therefore found that he had not been dishonest.

The Committee also took into account that the applicant had been licensed for a number of years without any other complaints.  He had therefore satisfied the Committee that he was now a fit and proper person to hold a licence.