| Part I |
| 9. |
MINUTES
|
RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 25 June 2014 be approved as a correct record and signed.
|
| 10 |
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
|
Councillor Mrs L. Brunt (sub: Councillor Ms B. Thomson),
Councillor R. Harper (sub: Councillor B.A. Stead) and
Councillor R.C. Newstead (sub: Councillor S. Rickman).
|
| 11 |
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
|
There were no declarations of interest.
|
| 12 |
ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS
|
There was no urgent business.
|
| 13 |
EXEMPT BUSINESS
|
RESOLVED that members of the Press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that:
(i) they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act; and
(ii) the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
|
| Part II(Confidential) |
| 14 |
TO DETERMINE WHETHER A PRIVATE HIRE DRIVER IS A FIT AND PROPER PERSON TO HOLD SUCH A LICENCE
|
RESOLVED, that the licence be revoked.
Reasons for the decision
In reaching its decision the Committee took account of all the facts and had particular regard to:
• Section 45 Town Police Clauses Act 1847;
• Section 61 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976
• Council's own Taxi and PHV Licensing Criminal Convictions Policy
• The individual merits of the case
• Equality Act 2010
• Human Rights legislation in particular article 8 and article 1 First Protocol; and
• The rules of natural justice
It thereby concluded:
1. The incident reported to this Licensing Authority by Mid Sussex District Council was not the first incident relating to plying for hire. This is relevant when put into the context of the driver file as a whole.
2. The licenceholder has shown a lack of genuine remorse; too much emphasis has been placed on the distance of the journey on 8th February being short and the fare being of a small amount.
3. There are clear inconsistencies in what the licenceholder has stated during the course of the hearing regarding allegations and complaints, including the instances of plying for hire.
4. The licenceholder's explanation of the circumstances of the complaint of plying for hire in February 2014, both in the letter of 18 March 2014 and submissions at this hearing has been found to be wholly unpersuasive.
5. The licenceholder's explanation of the motivation behind the complaint of plying for hire (18th November 2013) has been found to be wholly unpersuasive
6. The licenceholder has received several warnings concerning the consequences of plying for hire and complaints regarding this conduct. the licenceholder has failed to learn from those warnings, therefore continuing to jeopardise his licence.
7. There is an element of trust expected between a private hire driver and the Licensing Authority; on the assessment of the facts and the submissions, it is deemed that the relationship of trust has been severely undermined.
8. Overall the view has been reached that the licenceholder does not demonstrate the right behaviour or attitude for a private hire driver.
It was noted that the licence holder had a right to appeal to Magistrates Court within 21 days of receiving the written decision.
(The Committee adjourned to break between hearings at 7.55pm
and resumed at 8.05pm.)
|
| 15 |
TO DETERMINE WHETHER A PRIVATE HIRE DRIVER IS A FIT AND PROPER PERSON TO HOLD SUCH A LICENCE
|
RESOLVED, that the licence be revoked.
Reasons for the decision
During the adjournment the Committee viewed this as a serious case and took much time to review the papers and to consider the submissions made by the licence holder/representative. There was a detailed debate that balanced all the relevant matters. The test was to consider whether the licence holder was a fit and proper person to continue to hold this licence.
In reaching its decision the Committee took account of all the facts and had particular regard to:
• oral submissions received from the licence holder/representative;
• the outcome of the Regulatory Committee on 28 November 2013 and the formal warning issued by that Committee;
• the licence holder's completion of a Driver Check 55 Assessment on 23rd January 2014;
• Section 51 and 61 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976;
• Council's compliance and enforcement role;
• standards and conditions that apply to private hire drivers and vehicles;
• the individual merits of the case;
• Equality Act 2010 (public sector duty);
• Human Rights legislation in particular article 8 and article 1 First Protocol; and
• The rules of natural justice
It thereby concluded:
1. It is extremely rare for a Committee to issue a strongly worded formal warning, and for that same driver to then come back before it;
2. There is evidence of a pattern of behaviour that is of serious concern, including how the licence holder reacts to incidents that involve the public, which is of paramount importance;
3. The Committee understands what this decision means in terms of the licence holder's livelihood, however when balanced against the protection of the public, the loss of the licence holder's livelihood in itself was not sufficient to warrant any other course of action;
4. The Committee views this to be a disappointing and sad outcome;
5. The submissions made by the licenceholders representative, who spoke highly in support of the licence holder (indicating that he worked hard and that he was proud to work with him) were duly considered;
6. The licence holder was aware that one private hire badge must be displayed in the windscreen of the private hire vehicle and the other must be worn by the driver so that they are clearly visible to members of the public. The licenceholder has admitted that on this occasion he was not wearing the badge;
7. One repeated explanation (put forward by both the licenceholder and his representative) for the source of this and previous complaints, was that the licenceholder is excitable and loud with an extrovert personality. This was not accepted as the cause for the complaints;
8. One of the licence holder's submissions focussed on the high level of mileage undertaken in any given year, being considerably more than the average driver and the effect this may have. The Committee did not view the mileage as the relevant consideration in this regard; rather it considered that a professional driver should maintain minimum standards at all times with both customers and members of the public;
9. The Committee considered that the licence holder lacked the appropriate skills to deal with situations that occur in the course of being a private hire driver. An example of this drawn was where members of the public are concerned or agitated by a private hire driver's behaviour or driving or when a private hire driver perceives that others are driving or behaving badly. In essence, the manner in which this licence holder dealt with stressful situations when driving was a serious concern;
10. The licence holder's submissions in this hearing indicated to the committee that he viewed this latest incident and previous incidents to be the fault of somebody else;
11. The reference by the licenceholder's representative to his own 30 years' experience (as a licensed operator and as a private hire driver) without ever receiving a complaint about his driving, conduct or behaviour, adds to this concern;
12. Overall a view has been reached that the licence holder did not demonstrate the right behaviour or attitude to continue as a private hire driver;
13. There is evidence of aggressive conduct/language and bad driving, heightened in stressful situations, these are relevant considerations; and
14. Ultimately it is the duty of the committee to protect the public as a whole, not just the customers of the driver.
It was noted that the licence holder had a right to appeal to Magistrates Court within 21 days of receiving this written decision.
|