Agenda item

The Licensing Sub-Committee is asked to determine whether the individual remains a ‘fit and proper’ person to continue to hold a Private Hire driver, Operator and Vehicle Licence.

 

This matter is brought before the Licensing Sub-Committee for determination.

 

This item was restricted by virtue of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. Exempt information – Categories 1 (information relating to any individual) and 2 (information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual).

 

Present:

 

From BCP Council:

Michelle Fletcher – Licensing Officer

Wesley Freeman – Licensing Officer

Linda Cole – Legal Advisor to the Sub-Committee

Michelle Cutler – Clerk to the Sub-Committee

 

The driver was in attendance, represented by a solicitor. A trainee solicitor was also in attendance. The driver was accompanied by a friend for moral support.

 

The Chair made introductions and explained the procedure to be followed in considering this item, which was agreed by all parties present.

 

The Licensing Officer presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'B' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

 

The Sub-Committee was asked to consider whether the individual remained a ‘fit and proper’ person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver, Operator and Vehicle Licence following a recent driver complaint which led to an investigation into alleged non-compliance issues with all three licences.

 

The Sub-Committee asked various questions of all parties present and were grateful for the responses received. All parties had the opportunity to ask questions.

 

The Sub-Committee adjourned briefly at the request of the driver’s solicitor as during the hearing, new information had come to light that the solicitor was not aware of.

 

All parties were invited to sum up before the Sub-Committee retired to make its decision. Before concluding the hearing, the Council’s Legal Advisor advised all parties of the right of appeal.

 

  The Sub-Committee RESOLVED?that?the driver,?is no longer a ‘fit and proper’ person to hold a Private Hire Driver’s Licence and that the licence be revoked with immediate effect under Section 61(2B) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 in the interests of public safety. 

 

The Sub-Committee further determines that?the driver is not a ‘fit and proper’ person to hold a Private Hire Vehicle Licence and that licence be revoked under Section 60 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 due to his failure to comply with statutory requirements or licence conditions. 

 

The Sub-Committee also resolved to revoke?the driver’s Private Hire Operator Licence under Section 62 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 due to his failure to comply with mandatory conditions and because he is no longer being deemed to be a ‘fit and proper’ person to hold such a licence. 

 

Reasons?for Decision:?

? 

The Sub-Committee?considered?all the written information which had been?submitted?before?the hearing and contained in?the Licensing Officer’s report?for Agenda Item?8.? 

 

The Sub-Committee also considered?the verbal submissions made at?the hearing by?the Licensing Officers, Michelle Fletcher and Wesley Freeman,?the driver and the Solicitor?representing?the driver. 

 

In considering?the?test?of whether the driver is a ‘fit and proper’ person, the Sub- Committee had regard to?the BCP Council Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver Policy 2026 – 2031 and?the provisions of?the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act?1976.  

They also noted the Institute of Licensing (IOL) Guidance on determining?the suitability of applicants and licensees in?the hackney and private hire?trades (2018), which advises that licensing authorities must adopt a precautionary approach and refuse or revoke licences where there is any doubt regarding an individual’s fitness or propriety, particularly where safeguarding risks are present and the Department for Transport’s Statutory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards (2022), which emphasise the paramount importance of safeguarding, risk based decision making, and the need for licensing authorities to take firm action where patterns of concerning behaviour emerge. 

 

In particular,?the Sub Committee?had regard?to?the?following points:? 

 

1            Private Hire Drivers Licence 

Harassment complaints 

 

The Sub-Committee considered three separate unrelated harassment complaints made by lone female passengers, received while the driver was working for two different operators. 

 

The first 2 complaints occurred when he was working for Operator ‘A’, he received a warning from ‘Operator A’ for the first complaint and when a second complaint was received Operator ‘A’ suspended him and then removed him from their books. He was issued with a written warning from BCP Councils Licensing Team at this time. The third harassment complaint?occurred when?the driver?was working for Operator ‘B’ and he was suspended?and removed from their books.?The driver was interviewed by the Licensing Team due to the repeat pattern of allegations against him?where he denied any?wrongdoing. 

 

 Overcharging complaint and failure to notify employment 

 

New evidence from another operator confirmed an upheld complaint of overcharging and revealed that the driver had been working for that operator fulltime without notifying the Licensing Team as required by his licence conditions. 

 

School run discrepancy 

 

Evidence from Operator ‘B’ showed the driver had undertaken school runs despite denying this during a Licensing Team interview. 

 

In response to the allegations, the Solicitor, advised that his client denied the harassment allegations, disputed the other operator complaint, and claimed he was unaware of his duty to notify change of operator. 

 

The Sub-Committee were concerned that?the driver?accepted no fault or responsibility for his behaviour and did not identify any changes that he could make to his conduct or practice. They noted he had already received a written warning and had already undertaken?additional?safeguarding training.  

 

The Sub-Committee expressed serious concern about the nature of the allegations made against the driver, noting that they related directly to passengers who were dependent on him for their safety. The Sub-Committee recognised that a taxi or private hire driver occupies a position of considerable trust and authority, with passengers placing themselves and their personal safety wholly in the driver’s care.

 

In reaching its decision, the Sub-Committee placed significant weight on the fundamental importance of safeguarding the public and protecting vulnerable individuals. 

 

?The Sub-Committee?had?regard to?the?Department of Transport’s?test?for decision makers?which posed the question:?“Without any prejudice, and based on the information before you, would you allow a person for whom you care, regardless of their condition, to travel alone in a vehicle driven by this person at any time of day or night?” and concluded on the balance of probabilities that they would not allow a person for whom they care to travel alone with the driver. 

 

The Sub-Committee had no confidence in?the drivers ability to discharge the responsibilities as a licensed driver and concluded that he is not a ‘fit and proper’?person to hold a private hire driver’s licence and that revocation under Section 61(2b) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 was both necessary and proportionate in the interests of public safety. 

 

2             Private Hire Vehicle Licence 

 

The Sub-Committee noted that the driver had repeatedly failed to comply with requirements relating to the proper display of vehicle livery, despite being reminded on several occasions of the need for permanent affixation of plates and signage on the vehicle. Licensing Officer Wesley Freeman confirmed that he had personally observed the licensed vehicle parked without the required livery being displayed, even after explicit warnings had been issued. The Sub-Committee were concerned that this was not a one-off oversight but part of a consistent and ongoing pattern of behaviour. The Sub-Committee took account of the Solicitors submissions that the driver regarded Bournemouth as a “rough area” and was reluctant for his vehicle to display taxi livery in case it attracted break ins from people looking for money. However, the Sub-Committee considered that, having chosen to apply for and hold a vehicle licence within the BCP area, he was required to comply fully with the licensing conditions, including the proper display of livery despite what he thought about the area. 

 

The Sub-Committee also noted that an inward facing CCTV or dashcam device had been fitted inside the vehicle, contrary to Council policy, which prohibits inward facing cameras unless expressly authorised. While Mr Freeman acknowledged that a vehicle inspection would be required to confirm the exact type of camera installed, its presence nevertheless demonstrated further noncompliance with the vehicle policy. The Solicitor advised that the camera had been installed for protection but accepted that it would need to be removed if required. 

 

The Sub-Committee considered that these issues, taken together, showed a clear and persistent disregard for the conditions of the vehicle licence. The requirement to permanently affix plates and livery is fundamental to the regulation of the trade, ensuring that licensed vehicles can always be identified by members of the public and enforcement officers. Despite repeated advice, the driver had still not affixed the required plates to his vehicle. This ongoing noncompliance gave the Sub-Committee no confidence that he was willing or able to meet even the most basic obligations of a licensed vehicle proprietor. 

 

Considering the repeated breaches, the absence of corrective action, and the driver’s overall compliance history, the Sub Committee concluded that the driver was not a ‘fit and proper’ person to hold a Private Hire Vehicle Licence, and that revocation under Section 60 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 was both necessary and proportionate. 

 

3            Private Hire Operator Licence 

 

The Sub-Committee noted?that?the driver?was unable?to?produce the mandatory booking, complaint, or lost property records required of an operator and that he operated without the necessary policies or procedural systems. This demonstrated a further failure to comply with the conditions of a licence. The Sub-Committee also considered the Solicitor’s explanation that this was because the driver had been working under other operators rather than using his own operator’s licence but now wished to rely on that licence because his history meant he could no longer work for other operators. 

 

The Sub-Committee however considered section?3.45 of the?‘Institute of Licensing Suitability Guidance on?determining the suitability of?applicants and?licences?in the private hire and hackney?industry’.?They asked themselves,?‘if without any?prejudice?and based on the information before them,?would you be comfortable providing sensitive?information?such as holiday plans, movements of your family, or other information to this person, and feel safe in the knowledge that such information would?not be used or?passed?on for criminal or unacceptable?purposes?’? 

The Sub-Committee concluded that they would not be comfortable in providing the driver?with sensitive personal information and given his compliance history, the Sub-Committee had no confidence in his ability to operate legally or responsibly. 

 

The Sub-Committee determined that he was not a ‘fit and proper’ person to hold a Private Hire Operator Licence, and that revocation under Section 62 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 was both necessary and proportionate. 

 

The Sub-Committee found that the drivers previous conduct and compliance history gave them no confidence in his ability to behave in an appropriate or responsible manner in the future. The Sub-Committee was not satisfied that he would comply with the conditions of his licences or meet the standards expected of those entrusted with public safety. Considering these concerns and having concluded that he fell short of the standard required of a licensed BCP driver across all three of his licences, the Sub-Committee resolved to revoke all three licences under the appropriate statutory powers.

 

Right of Appeal  

 

The person aggrieved by this decision, namely the licence holder has the right to appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which they are notified of the decision in writing