Decision details

Licence holder 36/2017 attended the meeting and was accompanied by his son.

       The Chair outlined the procedure to be followed and the Licensing Unit   Manager presented a report submitted by the Assistant Director (Localities), which was accepted by the Licence Holder. This explained that a warning letter was sent on 25 July 2017 to the Licence Holder for presenting a vehicle for test with a large number of faults.  Since receiving this letter, the Licence Holder has presented a further four vehicles for test and only one of which passed first time.  The officer state that the Licence Holder buys and sells vehicles and transfers the licence to other licensed drivers.

        The Licence Holder’s son addressed the Panel and explained that his father has been a licence holder for 15 years and is committed to his job.  He is a father of 6 children who he must support financially.  He stated that he maintains a certain standard with his vehicles, however, when he has taken the vehicles to a local MOT garage for testing, the vehicles have passed but when then taken it to Bradley Fold, numerous faults are found.  The Licence Holder has to pay for a re-test each time and yet feels he has maintained the vehicle to the standard required. He also confirmed being a self-taught mechanic albeit it has used a number of local garages to have the vehicles tested.

        Various questions and concerns were raised with the Licence Holder from the Licensing and Safety Panel members and the Chair explained to the Licence Holder that an MOT test for a licensed vehicle being used by the public would be more stringent and to a higher standard than that of a personal vehicle. It was also noted by the Panel that the Licence Holder had been warned not to use Bradley Fold to check his vehicles and that he must take them for testing having prepared them.

        Delegated decision:

                The Panel carefully considered the report and oral representations by the Licence Holder 36/2017 and his son and taking into account the Council’s Conviction Policy and Guidelines and in accordance with the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, resolved, unanimously, to revoke the driver’s licence.

The Panel found as follows;

·         That public safety is paramount and that the Licence Holder had shown little regard as to the wellbeing of passengers by allowing his vehicles to fail numerous MOT tests on such serious faults. 

·         The Licence Holder had been driving for 15 years and should be more aware of the importance of the maintenance of a vehicle being used to carry the travelling public.

·         The Licence Holder had been warned as to his conduct and the requirements in relation to maintaining his vehicles but had paid no regard to this.

·         The Licence Holder had submitted 5 vehicles for testing over a 13 month period, all of which had failed their first test, 2 had failed twice and one vehicle had failed twice the first time and then when re-tested 5 months later had failed again.

·         The Licence Holder showed little understanding of the situation or the importance of maintain his vehicles.

·         The Licence Holder showed no regard for the warning issued by the Licensing authority.

·         The Licence Holder showed no remorse for his actions.

In the circumstances, the Panel felt that the Licence Holder was not a fit and proper person to be a hackney carriage driver within Bury.

The Licence Holder was notified of the right to appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days.