Decision details

Licence Holder 07/2017 was invited into the meeting and was represented by Mr D Whitehead and accompanied by his partner.

The Chair outlined the procedure to be followed and the Licensing Unit Manager presented a summarised report submitted by the Assistant Director (Localities) which was accepted by the Licence Holder and his representative. This set out the reasons for the Licence Holder being before the Panel.

The report explained that on 9^th March 2017, the Licensing Service had received a complaint that at approximately 17.50 on 8^th March 2017 the Licence Holder had approached the complainant at a bus stop on Bury Road. The complainant had not booked a private hire vehicle and had not tried to attract the Licence Holders attention. The Licence Holder offered to take the complainant where she wanted to go without having to pay. The incident had been witnessed by the complainants’ employer and his wife, who picked up the complainant and took her home. They subsequently provided witness statements to the Licensing Service in respect of the incident.

When interviewed by the Licensing Service about the matter the Licence Holder claimed he had no recollection of the incident and denied picking up or approaching the public.

The report stated that the Licence Holder had been before the Licensing and Safety Panel on 29^th February 2016 as a result of the failing to declare 2 complaints made to Bolton Council relating to inappropriate conduct towards female passengers when he originally applied for his licence with Bury Council. On that occasion, the Panel had resolved to issue the Licence Holder with a verbal warning.

Mr Whitehead addressed the Panel on behalf of the Licence Holder. He produced several character references from female passengers which were submitted to the Panel. It was explained that the Licence Holder had been confused during his interview with the Licensing Officer regarding the incident. He stated that the confusion had arisen as he had been asked about Radcliffe Road not Bury Road. The Licence Holder did recall an incident on Bury Road which is a continuation of Radcliffe Road. Mr Whitehead then questioned why the complainant had not been interviewed by the Licensing Service with a translator as the witness statement provided by the complainant’s employer made reference to the potential to exploit the complainants’ poor understanding of English. The Licensing Enforcement Officer who conducted the interview was present at the meeting and was able to confirm that there had been no language barrier during the interview process.

Mr Whitehead went on to state that the Licence Holder had been given the benefit of the doubt in the past, the evidence was contradictory and the Licence Holder had been confused as to the location of the incident.

The Licence Holder’s wife stated that her husband had been known to get himself into “situations” but he was friendly and often misunderstood.

The Licence Holder also addressed the Panel and explained that he was in the area of Bury Road/Radcliffe Road at the time as he was waiting for a potential regular booking. He denied that he had approached the complainant at the bus stop and stated that he was parked at the junction of Oakwood Grove and Bury Road and that his vehicle was approached by the complainant. The Licence Holder stated that he informed the complainant that she could talk to him but he could not take her anywhere as she had not made a booking. A copy of the clients completed jobs list was submitted to the Panel which indicated that he did not work between 15.59 and 18.08.

Various questions were asked of the Licence Holder from members of the Licensing and Safety Panel.

Delegated decision:

1.   The Panel carefully considered the report, the character references and the oral representations by Licence Holder 07/2017, their representative Mr Whitehead and the licence holders wife and taking into account the Council’s Conviction Policy and Guidelines and in accordance with the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and resolved, unanimously, to suspend Licence Holder 07/2017 for a period of 6 months. 

The Panel noted the following;

·         That the licence holders version of events differed from the statements provided by the complainant and the complainants employer but concluded that the Licence Holder had been plying for hire and had attempted to pick up a lone female.

·         The Licence Holder could provide no reasonable explanation as to why the complaints on this occasion or previous occasions had been made.

·         The Panel highlighted concerns in relation to the similarities with previous allegations for which the Licence Holder had been before the Panel.

·         The complaints of both plying for hire and approaching a lone female were both of a very serious. 

·         The Licence Holder had received a previous warning from the Panel and had appeared not to act in accordance with that warning.

The Applicant was informed of his right of appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days.