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 dual Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence and Hackney Carriage Vehicle Proprietor’s Licence.

The Licensing Officer presented the report which set out information that the holder of a Torbay Council issued Driver’s Licence had accumulated 9 DVLA penalty points arising from three speeding offences, two of which occurred on 20 July 2023 and one on 11 October 2025.  Members also noted that the Respondent had failed to notify the Licensing Authority of any of the offences in accordance with the conditions attached to his licence and had declared on a renewal application that he had no convictions.

Members received oral representations from the Respondent.

Decision

That the Respondent be formally warned in writing and that this warning shall remain in situ for a period of three years and that should any further issues of concern arise within that three-year period which requires the Respondent to appear before a Regulatory Sub-Committee, Members of that Sub-Committee shall be made aware of this written warning.

In addition:

1. Within three months of this decision the Respondent shall successfully undertake a RoSPA Defensive Driving Level 2 course and provide written evidence of successful completion to Torbay Council's Licensing Department; and

2. The Respondent shall read and familiarise himself with the contents of Torbay Council's Hackney Carriage (Taxi) and Private Hire Policy and keep a copy of the Policy in the Licensed vehicle at all times when on duty as a Licensed Driver.

No action shall be taken in respect of the Respondent's Hackney Carriage Vehicle Proprietor's Licence.

Reasons for Decision

Having carefully considered all the written and oral representations before them, Torbay Council’s Taxi Policy, Statutory Guidance, Institute of Licensing (IoL) Guidance and Button on Taxis, Members resolved that the appropriate and proportionate sanction was to issue the Respondent with a formal written warning together with a requirement to successfully complete a RoSPA Defensive Driving Level 2 course and to familiarise himself with Torbay Council's Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy.

In reaching their decision, Members were mindful that their primary responsibility was the protection of the travelling public and to determine whether the Respondent remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Torbay Council Driver's Licence.  Members considered the statutory test and carefully reflected upon whether they would permit a person for whom they care, or a vulnerable person known to them, to travel alone in a vehicle driven by the Respondent.  Members concluded that, notwithstanding the issues that had brought the matter before them, the Respondent remained a fit and proper person to hold a Licence.

Members noted that the Respondent had accumulated nine DVLA penalty points arising from three speeding offences and had failed to notify the Licensing Authority of any of those endorsements as required by the conditions attached to his Driver's Licence and Torbay Council's Taxi Policy. 

Members also noted that during his licence renewal application the Respondent had indicated that he had no convictions when, in fact, the motoring convictions were already recorded on his Licence.

Members regarded the speeding offences and the failure to notify the Licensing Authority as serious matters.  Licensed drivers are professional drivers entrusted with the safety of passengers and are expected to demonstrate a high standard of driving and regulatory compliance.  Members therefore considered it appropriate to treat the Respondent's accumulation of penalty points and failure to report them as conduct falling below the standards expected of a Licensed Driver.

Notwithstanding those concerns, Members gave significant weight to the Respondent's candour before the Sub-Committee.  The Respondent accepted responsibility for the speeding offences, offered no substantive defence to them and repeatedly acknowledged that he should have reported the endorsements, and explained that other drivers had told him that he did not need to report until after 6 points, he was aware now that was wrong and that he should have been more aware of the reporting conditions himself rather than relying on others.  Members found him to be open and remorseful during the hearing and accepted that there had been no deliberate attempt to conceal the offences from the Licensing Authority, and that no passengers were in the vehicle on each occasion he was speeding.

Members particularly noted the Respondent's explanation that he had misunderstood the meaning of "convictions" when completing renewal documentation and had not fully appreciated that penalty point endorsements and motoring convictions were matters that required notification.  Whilst Members did not consider this misunderstanding to excuse his failures, they accepted that it provided some context as to why the offences had not been disclosed.  Members were also prepared to accept that the wording within the renewal process may not have been as clear as it could be and that the Respondent had genuinely, although mistakenly, failed to appreciate the extent of his reporting obligations.

Members further noted that two of the offences arose from the same date in July 2023 and had already expired as active penalty points by the time the matter came before the Sub-Committee, leaving the Respondent with only three active penalty points on his Licence.  However, Members agreed that the matter should properly be assessed on the basis that the Respondent had accumulated nine penalty points which had been on his Licence at the time of the check and that the expiry of some points should not diminish the seriousness of the conduct, particularly as they had not been reported.

Whilst Members were concerned by the number of endorsements accrued, they were satisfied that the evidence before them did not demonstrate a deliberate disregard for public safety or regulatory requirements.  Members considered there to be a realistic prospect that the shortcomings identified could be addressed through further training and a formal warning rather than suspension or revocation.