To consider a report of the fit and proper status of a Driver licensed by Torbay Council.

Members considered a report on the fit and proper status of the holder of a Torbay Council issued Driver’s Licence, Hackney Carriage Vehicle Proprietor Licence and Private Hire Operator Licence.  The Licensing Officer presented the report which set out information detailing potential breaches of the Hackney Carriage (Taxi) and Private Hire Policy and complaints related to the behaviour of the holder of a Torbay Council issued Driver’s Licence, Hackney Carriage Vehicle Proprietor Licence and Private Hire Operator Licence.

Members received oral representations from the Respondent.

Decision

That the Respondent’s Torbay Council dual Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Drivers’ Licence be revoked in accordance with Section 61(1)(b) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act 1976 and that this revocation shall have immediate effect, in accordance with Section 61(2B) of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976.

Secondly, in relation to the Private Hire Operators Licence, the licence shall be revoked in accordance with Section 62(1)(d) of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976. 

Reasons for Decision

Having carefully considered all the written and oral representations, Members resolved to revoke the Respondents dual Hackney Carriage and Private Vehicle Drivers Licence and Private Hire Operators Licence having been satisfied that on the balance of probability the Respondent was not a fit and proper person to hold such licenses, and in light of the evidence before them such a decision was reasonable and proportionate.

In coming to their decision, Members carefully considered, having been charged with the responsibility to determine the Respondent’s suitability to continue holding either  of the licences issued by Torbay Council considered the test set out in Paragraph 1.5 of Appendix A of the Taxi Policy, whether they would allow their son or daughter, spouse or partner, mother or father, grandson or granddaughter or any other person for whom they care, or any other vulnerable person known to them, to get into a vehicle with the Respondent alone.  Members unanimously and unequivocally answered “no". 

Members felt that the Respondent had not complied with the following guidance or policy from the Department of Transport Statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards paragraph 5.4; or from recognised legal text Button on Taxis 5^th Edition paragraph 8.235; or the Institute of Licensing Suitability Guidance paragraphs 3.29 and 3.35, his behaviour overall was not as expected under the Taxi Policy Appendix A paragraph 1.1 and Appendix B paragraph 1, and there was potential contraventions of Hackney Carriages and Public Hire Vehicles Byelaws

Members were concerned at the number of separate issues which were bought to their attention such as behaviour towards Civil Enforcement Officers, speeding, transfer of licenced vehicle to another person, and also lending a licence vehicle to a family member, and were concerned that these displayed a pattern of behaviour not befitting of a licensed professional.  The Respondent’s comments and conduct demonstrated a lack of self-awareness and responsibility for his actions. 

Members noted specifically that there was a complete lack of contrition in relation to the incident involving abuse of Civil Enforcement Officers, and that the Respondent consistently held others responsible for the issues under consideration, accepting no responsibility for his actions and demonstrating no awareness of the impact of his actions, or his responsibilities as a licensed driver, even suggesting the Civil Enforcement Officers didn’t know how to do their own jobs.

Members noted that no mitigating circumstances had been offered in advance, and that the Respondent had failed to supply the basic V5 documentation requested of him by Licensing Officers, which evidenced a different Registered Keeper.  Members considered that the mitigations offered at the hearing did not fully explain or excuse any of the incidents under consideration, and in a number of cases displayed a willingness on the part of the Respondent to be dishonest. 

In the case of the speeding offence, Members considered the explanation provided by the Respondent that he was advised to provide false representation either to the Police or to the Licensing Authority, and did not accept that either of these Responsible Authorities would have advised the Respondent to act in such a way as to break the law.  In cases where a plausible explanation was offered, such as the disputed ownership of the Hackney Carriage Vehicle which was subject to a finance agreement and the Finance Company requiring the loanee to be the Registered Keeper to prevent fraud, the Registered Keeper was changed but was not a person whom held a Hackney Carriage or Private Hire Drivers Licence.  The Respondent despite numerous requests failed to provide a copy of the V5 for this period.  Members considered that, even in the most generous reading of the situation, the Respondent had failed in his responsibilities under the Torbay Council’s Hackney Carriage (Taxi) and Private Hire Policy and that his conduct fell below that which is expected of him.

In conclusion, Members were in no doubt that it was appropriate and proportionate to revoke the Respondents Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Drivers Licence and Private Hire Operators Licence as they were not satisfied that he was a fit and proper person to be a licenced driver or a private hire operator for Torbay Council.