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 Respondent had previously appeared before a Regulatory Sub-Committee in November 2025, when her Driver’s Licence was suspended for three months following numerous complaints relating to driving standards, customer service and conduct.  Members noted that following the completion of mandatory driving and customer service training and her return to Licensed driving, further concerns had arisen including an admitted offence of driving without due care and attention following a road traffic collision, complaints relating to driving standards and interactions with other Licensed Drivers, and a warning issued for over-ranking on a taxi rank.

Members received oral representations from the Respondent and her representative.

Decision

That the Respondent’s Torbay Council Driver’s 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.

No action will be taken in respect of the Hackney Carriage Vehicle Proprietor Licence.

Reasons for Decision

Having carefully considered all the written and oral representations, together with the Taxi Hire Policy, relevant statutory provisions as well as the Department for Transport Standards, Institute of Licensing Guidance and the leading Academic in this area.  Members resolved to revoke the Respondent’s Torbay Council Driver’s Licence having been satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the Respondent was no longer a fit and proper person to hold a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence.

In coming to their decision, Members carefully considered whether they would allow a person for whom they care, or any vulnerable person known to them, to travel alone in a vehicle driven by the Respondent.  Members were not satisfied that they could answer that question in the affirmative.  In accordance with the Department for Transport Statutory Guidance Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards, where Members are not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a driver remains fit and proper, the individual should not hold a Licence.

Members recognised that this was the second occasion the Respondent had appeared before a Regulatory Sub-Committee within a relatively short period of time.  Members noted that on 6 November 2025 the Respondent’s Driver’s Licence had been suspended for three months on public safety grounds following nineteen complaints relating to poor driving standards, sleeping in a Licensed vehicle whilst on duty, failure to queue correctly on taxi ranks, refusing card payments and passengers, aggressive behaviour and poor attitude.  Members further noted that, in an effort to address those concerns and assist the Respondent in remaining within the Licensed trade, the previous Sub-Committee had required the Respondent to complete both a RoSPA Advanced Driving Course and a Customer Service qualification before returning to Licensed driving.

Whilst Members acknowledged that the Respondent had completed both courses as required, they were concerned that shortly after returning to Licensed Driving, further complaints and concerns had arisen.  Of particular concern to Members was the fact that the incidents considered by this Sub-Committee had occurred after the Respondent had already undergone formal training and had already been the subject of significant regulatory intervention.  Members therefore considered that the previous

suspension and training requirements had failed to secure the improvement in standards that had been expected.

Members gave significant weight to the road traffic collision that occurred on 28 March 2026.  Whilst recognising that Devon and Cornwall Police did not prosecute the matter before the Courts, Members noted that the Respondent had accepted responsibility for driving without due care and attention and that this had been formally recorded by the Police.  Members did not accept the suggestion that the incident should be afforded little weight simply because the damage to the other vehicle was limited or because a driver improvement course had been offered.  Members considered that a professional Licensed Driver must be held to a higher standard than an ordinary motorist and viewed the incident as further evidence of poor driving standards, particularly when the Respondent spoke about the incident they mentioned that the air bags had gone off in the vehicle and that the front wheel disc had snapped.

Members carefully considered the complaints alleging that the Respondent had followed Teignbridge Licensed Drivers operating within Torbay and had attempted to obtain photographs of those vehicles.  Members accepted that the evidence fell short of conclusively proving the more serious allegations of stalking or harassment.  Accordingly, Members did not place substantial weight upon those allegations and accepted that the term "stalking" may have overstated what could be proven from the evidence available.

However, Members were concerned by the Respondent’s own admission that she had actively followed another Licensed vehicle in order to obtain a photograph and had taken it upon herself to investigate matters relating to other drivers.  While Members noted that drivers had been requested to provide information regarding these drivers to the Union and Association representatives, it was noted that the guidance of the Institute of Licensing that Licensed Drivers should not take the law into their own hands and should conduct themselves professionally at all times.  Members considered that even if motivated by concerns regarding drivers from outside the area, the Respondent had exercised poor judgement in pursuing another vehicle and involving herself in matters that should properly have been reported to the Licensing Authority.  While Members considered there to be some mitigation in respect of this complaint, Members determined that it formed part of a broader picture concerning the Respondent’s driving standards.

In relation to the over-ranking incident, Members noted that the Respondent had accepted being fourth in a three-car taxi rank and had suggested that she did not appreciate the seriousness of the matter.  Members noted that the Respondent had already appeared before a Regulatory Sub-Committee relating to conduct and operational concerns within the taxi trade, and that the Licensing Authority had repeatedly communicated expectations regarding rank discipline.  Members therefore considered the over-ranking incident to be another example of the Respondent failing to comply with the standards expected of Licensed Drivers.

Members also considered the Respondent’s submissions that English was her fourth language, that she had experienced stress arising from family circumstances, including her father suffering a stroke, and that driving taxis remained her sole source of income.  Members were sympathetic to those circumstances and accepted that they may have contributed to some of the pressures the Respondent was facing.  However, Members were reminded that financial hardship is not a relevant consideration when determining whether a driver remains fit and proper and that public safety must remain the overriding consideration.

Of particular concern to Members was the cumulative nature of the evidence before them.  Individually, some of the matters may not have justified revocation.  However, Members were entitled to consider the entirety of the Respondent’s licensing history, including previous complaints, the previous suspension, the requirement to complete remedial training, the admitted driving without due care and attention, the over-ranking offence and the subsequent complaints relating to driving standards and interactions with other drivers.

Members were mindful of the Institute of Licensing Suitability Guidance 2024, in particular noting that they were entitled to consider conduct which had not resulted in criminal convictions, that professional Licensed Drivers are expected to demonstrate appropriate conduct at all times, and that patterns of repeated unacceptable behaviour are likely to be of greater concern than isolated incidents.

Members concluded that the Respondent’s regulatory history demonstrated a continuing pattern of poor judgement, disregard for Licensing requirements and driving standards falling below those expected of a professional Licensed Driver.  Members were particularly troubled that these matters arose within months of the Respondent returning to Licensed driving after serving a suspension and completing mandatory training.  Members were therefore not persuaded that any further warning, training requirement or period of suspension would be sufficient to address the concerns identified.

In determining the appropriate sanction, Members considered whether a further suspension could achieve the necessary objectives.  However, Members concluded that having already been afforded a significant opportunity to improve through a previous suspension and training, there was little confidence that a further period of suspension would result in any meaningful change.  Members therefore considered revocation to be the only reasonable and proportionate outcome.

Members further determined that the revocation should take immediate effect.  In reaching that conclusion, Members were satisfied that the continuation of the Respondent as a Licensed Driver pending the expiry of the appeal period would pose a risk to public safety.  Members considered that the evidence demonstrated ongoing concerns regarding the Respondent’s driving standards, judgement and compliance with the standards expected of Licensed Drivers.  Accordingly, Members concluded that immediate revocation was both necessary and proportionate in the interests of public safety.

In concluding, Members were not satisfied that the Respondent remained a fit and proper person to hold a Torbay Council Driver’s Licence and therefore resolved to revoke that Licence with immediate effect.  No action was taken in respect of the Respondent’s Hackney Carriage Vehicle Proprietor Licence.