Agenda item

The Licensing Team has received information in relation to a

currently licensed driver that raises concerns on his suitability to

meet the ‘fit and proper’ criteria to remain a licensed driver.

This matter is brought before the Sub-Committee for consideration.

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).

Attendance:

From BCP Council:

Trudi Barlow – Licensing Officer

Michelle Fletcher – Licensing Officer

Linda Cole – Legal Advisor to the sub-committee

Christiane Tan - Clerk to the sub-committee

Michelle Cutler – Democratic Services support

The driver was in attendance unaccompanied. 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 'A' to these Minutes in the Minute Book. The Licensing Team had received information in relation to a currently licensed driver that raised concerns on their suitability to remain a licensed driver. The Sub-Committee was asked to consider whether the driver remained a ‘fit and proper’ person to hold a hackney carriage and private hire driver license.

The Sub-Committee asked various questions of the driver and officers present and was grateful for the responses received.

The Licensing Officer was invited to sum up before the Sub-Committee retired to make its decision. Before concluding the hearing, the Legal Advisor advised of the right of appeal.

RESOLVED that the driver remains a ‘fit and proper person’ to hold a private hire driver’s licence. However, the Sub-Committee, raised concerns regarding the driver’s apparent lack of diligence and considered that he had not demonstrated a proper appreciation of the responsibilities associated with being a licensed driver.

Considering these concerns, the Sub?Committee determined that it was appropriate to issue a formal caution. The Sub?Committee was particularly disappointed that the driver was not fully aware of the requirements set out in the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver Policy and that he admitted he had not read the revised policy issued to all drivers in January 2026.

The Sub?Committee expects the driver to read and fully understand the policy and to ensure that he is aware of, and complies with, all information and responsibilities that apply to him as a private hire driver. Specifically, section 11 (Medicals), which clearly states that failure to submit a completed medical certificate by the due date will result in the suspension of a driver’s licence.

Reason for decision:

The Sub?Committee considered all the information submitted prior to the hearing, as contained in the Licensing Officer’s report for Agenda Item 6, together with the verbal submissions made at the hearing by all parties, including the responses provided by the driver to questions from the Sub?Committee.

In considering whether the driver was a ‘fit and proper person’, the Sub?Committee had regard to the BCP Council Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver Policy, the provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, the Institute of Licensing (IOL) Guidance on determining the suitability of drivers and licensees in the hackney and private hire trades (2018), and the Department for Transport Statutory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards (updated November 2022).

The Sub?Committee considered the following points:

The driver was first licensed as a private hire driver in 2006, and there are no recorded complaints within the last six?year retention period.

His application for a private hire driver’s licence with another Council was refused following disclosure of illegal cannabis use within a medical submitted in autumn2025, which was notified to BCP Licensing in 2026.

His BCP driver’s licence was suspended in late 2025 due to failure to submit a valid medical certificate by his 65th birthday as required by policy. He was notified shortly after his 65^th birthday by email that his licence was suspended until he submitted a satisfactory medical report.

The Operator confirmed that the driver had continued driving whilst suspended, but they were unaware that his licence had been suspended. The licensing officer clarified that the taxi operators were not notified of the cannabis use or that the driver’s licence had been suspended. The Operator suspended the driver from their operation immediately they became aware. The driver claimed that he did not receive the emailed notification of his suspension and was not aware he had been suspended, as he would not have continued to drive. He advised the Sub-Committee he only later saw the email on his phone, but his phone allowed emails to be covered by advertisements, and it had remained unread.

The driver submitted his driver’s medical examination which declared he was medically fit. A Licensing Officer contacted the GP to clarify why there was no mention of cannabis use included on the medical certificate previously submitted to another Council. The GP practice clarified that the driver had been a transient user of cannabis but had stopped using it.

The driver was asked why he had used cannabis and advised the Sub-Committee of his medical conditions. He explained he had picked up a GP as a passenger who had advised him of benefits of cannabis and this resulted in a brief experimentation. The driver stated that he no longer took cannabis and when asked he stated that he never driven within 12 hours of using cannabis.

The Licensing Officer brought the Sub-Committee’s attention to an email from the driver acknowledging that his medical is overdue, sent immediately after notification from the other Council that his application had been refused. The driver admitted to knowing he was driving with an overdue medical but maintained he was unaware that his licence had been suspended.

The Sub?Committee was concerned that the driver admitted he was aware his medical was overdue and that he had not read the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver Policy, including the revised policy issued for 2026–2031. Section 11.5 of that policy makes clear that an overdue medical results in suspension, such that the Sub?Committee considered he ought reasonably to have known he was not entitled to continue driving.

Having had his licence suspension lifted once his medical had been submitted and clarification received from the driver’s GP regarding the cannabis use, the Sub-Committee had to determine whether he was still a fit and proper person despite the cannabis use and his non-compliance with the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver Policy namely driving whilst suspended.

Having regard to the explanation given regarding cannabis use, the confirmation from the driver’s GP that he was fit to drive, and the absence of recent complaints and applying the test set out at paragraph 3.16 of the Institute of Licensing 2018 Guidance, ‘Would you (as a member of the licensing committee or other person charged with the ability to grant a hackney carriage driver’s licence) allow your son or daughter, spouse or partner, mother or father, grandson or granddaughter or any other person for whom you care, to get into a vehicle with this person alone.

The Sub?Committee determined that it would be content for a person for whom they care to travel alone with the driver and determined that the driver remained a fit and proper person. However, it considered that his non?compliance with policy, including driving whilst suspended and his lack of engagement with policy requirements, warranted a formal caution, which will remain on his driver record.

The Sub?Committee emphasised that it expects full compliance with all licensing requirements and policies going forward expects the driver to read and understand the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver Policy and to be aware of the responsibilities that apply to him as a private hire driver.

There is no right of appeal to this matter.