Agenda item

To seek consideration of whether the driver is ‘fit and proper’ following on from an investigation by the Neighbourhood Enforcement Team, as a result of video footage received

BB was in attendance and introductions were made.

The sub-committee considered the appropriate action following on from an investigation by the Neighbourhood Enforcement Team as a result of video footage.  It was confirmed that Members had had sight of the video footage and BB agreed that he had also seen it in advance of this hearing.

The Neighbourhood Enforcement Officer outlined key details set out in the report and confirmed that a PACE interview had been duly conducted on 5^th October 2017.  It was noted that the transcript of this interview had not been made available to Members as part of the Committee papers.

BB was invited to put his case to the Committee and address any questions put by the Committee:

·         BB was a new driver with a recently inspected vehicle

·         BB indicated that he had agreed a fare upfront as opposed to using the meter (even though it was within the Bristol City boundary) as he suspected they would not pay at the end of the journey if he used the meter.

·         BB felt he was not responsible for making sure his passengers wear their seatbelts if he had already asked them to do so

·         BB felt that the unruly passengers had no regard for their own safety and he was unable to stop them doing what they wanted

·         The incident had happened in the early hours of the morning between 03:00/04:00, the roads were not busy and there were no other cars/pedestrians around at the time

·         He indicated that at the time he had felt vulnerable and was weary of being attacked by the 6 passengers if he had tried to confront them, as they had been drinking.  He also did not want to get in to an altercation with them as it could have resulted in him losing his taxi licence

·         It was a 1 – 1.5 mile journey.  He had stopped at one point to tell them to get back inside the vehicle as he could lose his licence. 

·         After the journey had started again they were standing up on the seats and he was unsure what was going on in respect of the passengers in the back of the car.  From the driver’s position he could not see them crouching on the roof of the car, as captured in the video footage.  The controls for the sunroof were in the back of the car, so the youths must have opened the sunroof themselves and climbed up in order to sit on the roof of the car.

·         With his own safety in mind, BB had not wanted to stop the vehicle again and wanted to get to the destination as soon as possible.  At the time, he hoped that a police car would see him and then he would have felt safe to stop the vehicle.

·          BB said that he had flashed a police car which was coming up Broadwalk with its sirens on, it had continued up Broadwalk but police officers had then turned the car around a little way up the road and caught up with him once he was at his destination.  At this point the youths had alighted and run off.  BB indicated that the police officers had just given him words of advice, they did not ask him to get out of the car so he did not take their names or collar numbers.

The Chair commented that the overriding consideration of the Committee was the safety of the public. When questioned by Members as to what he would do differently in future, BB replied that he would stop the car, leave the car and call the police. When further questioned as to him seemingly trivialising the situation – telling the unruly passengers to get down and wear their seatbelts, BB replied ‘there was nothing else he could do / what could he do?’

The Licensing Officer and the applicant side left the room whilst the Sub-Committee considered its decision.

Decision

During deliberations, Members carefully considered the written and verbal evidence presented to them.  Members felt that in his responses, BB did not come across as sorry or appear to take responsibility for his lack of action.  Members were unanimous that his account was rather vague and he displayed no awareness of the real danger his passengers were in.  BB was an inexperienced/new driver and did not appear to have taken the incident seriously, displaying a very blasé attitude.  BB negotiated a fare when he should have had his meter on and had carried on driving after the first attempt to get the passengers back into the vehicle. He carried on driving for another 0.5 miles, negotiating a right hand turn into Broadwalk, so his passengers were in grave danger. BB had indicated to the Committee that he had not wanted an altercation which could have resulted in him losing his licence, he had also said he thought that they would attack him or the opposite (he would have to engage them in violence) which the Committee considered to not be a responsible action of a taxi driver.

In conclusion, this was a very serious incident, the account given by BB stating he didn’t know 3 of his passengers were on the roof of the car was not deemed credible.  Under the circumstances Members did not consider BB to be a fit and proper person to hold a taxi licence.     

 The Neighbourhood Enforcement Officer and BB returned to the room and were informed of the Sub-Committee’s decision, by the Chair.

RESOLVED:

That the Council could no longer be satisfied that BB was a fit and proper person to hold either a Hackney Carriage Drivers Licence or Private Hire Drivers Licence and in consequence there was “reasonable cause” to REVOKE both licences on the ground contained in section 61 (1) (b) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.