Agenda item

SA was in attendance accompanied by a Solicitor, BS and an Interpreter.

 

The Complainant, LT was in attendance accompanied by a colleague, GF.

 

The Chair explained the procedure that would be followed and everyone introduced themselves.

 

The Neighbourhood Enforcement Officer introduced the report and summarised it for everyone.

 

BS put the case for SA highlighting the following:

 

·                     He has had an unblemished character for 20 years

·                     This is the first complaint against him

·                     The Complainant and her Colleague are both retired Police Officers who had been drinking in the pub and kissing each other

·                     LT’s colleague did not accompany her to her house

·                     She concealed the fact that she was smoking

·                     SA had objected to her smoking

·                     She was using an electronic cigarette in the car

·                     She was not stable when she got out of the car and was unsteady on her feet

·                     She was drunk

·                     SA is disabled

·                     He has a wife and daughter and is the only person in his house who works

·                     The Complainant’s husband was in the house when she arrived home

·                     No CCTV footage was provided

·                     It is requested that the Committee grants SA a Licence

 

The Neighbourhood Enforcement Officer stated that it was normal practice to interview taxi drivers who had been complained about under caution.

 

The Neighbourhood Enforcement Officer advised that a complaint had been made against SA on 9^th August 2016 and that the allegations had been dealt with at the time. A letter had been sent to SA concerning the complaint. The Neighbourhood Enforcement Officer also confirmed that e-cigarettes are not forbidden under legislation.

 

SA asked Members to take account of his age and condition. He was not guilty of doing anything wrong but offered an apology if anyone had been offended by his behaviour.

 

The Neighbourhood Enforcement Officer confirmed that the fare for the journey would have been £12 and that a drop off in Gloucester Road would not have made any difference to the amount. The incident had taken place on 17^th May 2017. The complaint had been received the day after the incident on 18^th May 2017. (It was noted the statement concerning the complaint was taken on 31^st May 2017.) No CCTV footage was not available as the relevant cameras are not situated close enough to identify anyone.

 

The Complainant, LT put her case highlighting the following:

 

·                     She does not smoke

·                     She has MS, having been diagnosed 4 years ago; she finds walking challenging

·                     She had consumed a few drinks but was not drunk or in the state alleged by SA

·                     She was able to provide a detailed description of SA, confirming that she was not drunk

·                     The fare was £12, not £16 as alleged by SA

·                     She had been for a meal but did not feel well enough to get a bus home

·                     GF had accompanied her to the taxi, but did not get into the taxi

·                     She had thought that she would be safe with an older man but SA had made her feel vulnerable and unsafe

·                     She felt very insulted by SA’s allegations that she had been drunk and kissing in the back of the taxi

·                     When they arrived at her house she had been unable to exit the taxi until SA opened the door; she could not pass SA; she gave him a £20 note; he asked her for a kiss, she refused; she had to duck under his arm to get away from him and get to her house; she had not waited for the change from the £20 note but had not intended this as a tip of £8 on a £12 fare

·                     She had not lodged the complaint to ruin SA’s life; she did however, not want the same thing to happen to anyone else; she does not want to feel frightened to get into a taxi again

 

GF made a statement highlighting the following:

 

·                     He confirmed what LT had said

·                     He helped her to the taxi and asked the driver to get her home safely

·                     He did not get into the taxi as he lives the other side of the City

·                     He did not kiss her

·                     They are long time colleagues

·                     He has a partner

 

LT stated that she is on medication and is able to drink. SA would not have known how much she had to drink on the evening in question. She clarified the e-cigarette device (a vape) which she has which had gone down the back of the seat in taxi when she opened her handbag. She showed the Committee the device. Her fiancé is disabled and has a heart problem. He is her registered carer. He had wanted to attend the Meeting as he is angry about what had happened to her, but had been unable to as he is not well. He was not asked to make a statement.

 

SA stated that LT gave him the money inside the car and had refused any change. She had asked him to find her device down the back of the seat in the taxi.

 

LT stated again that she would not have given him an £8 tip on a £12 fare. She felt vulnerable because of his actions and just wanted to get to the safety of her house.

 

Neighbourhood Enforcement Officer stated that SA had originally stated that the complaint was racially motivated. BS stated that there was no racial element to the complaint.

 

BS summed up the case for SA.

 

The Neighbourhood Enforcement Officers, the Applicant, Solicitor, Interpreter, Complainant and Colleague left the room whilst the Committee made its decision.

 

Decision

 

The Members considered very carefully all of the written and verbal evidence presented to them.

 

The Members noted that the two versions of events differed significantly. They felt that there were a number of inconsistencies and unanswered questions which prevented them from being able to decide which was the correct version of events. They therefore decided that they were unable to uphold the complaint and to take no action against the Licence held by SA.

 

Everyone returned to the room to hear the decision – which 1 Member voted against - announced.

 

Resolved – (1) that the Complaint was not upheld; and

 

(2) that Officers be authorised to renew the Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licence held by SA.