A report from the Executive Director (Operations) is attached.
Minutes:
The Executive Director (Operations) submitted a report relating to an application for the grant of a private hire vehicle licence contrary to current Council policy.
The Applicant and his representative, Mr Muhammad Sajjad Warraich were in attendance at the meeting.
The Chair made introductions and the Council Solicitor outlined the procedure to be followed and clarified that all those present had read the report. The report, which was accepted by the Applicant and presented by the Deputy Licensing Officer, set out the reasons for the application being before the Committee.
The Deputy Licensing Officer reported that Members would recall a report relating to Stage 2 of the Common Minimum Licensing Standards (Vehicles) that was considered by this Committee on the 11th November 2021 and Full Council on the 24th November 2021. Members resolved to implement the Lead Officers recommendations in the report for vehicle standard 9 (Vehicle Design) which stated the following:-
‘Remaining glass or rear side windows (excluding the rear window) allow manufacturer’s tint to a minimum of 20% light transmission.’
Following the introduction of this standard the Licensing Service wrote to all licence holders informing them of the new changes that had been implemented and gave the link to the Council’s website to enable licence holders to view the changes.
The Licensing Service received an application from the Applicant to licence a private hire vehicle on the 21st March 2022. The details of the vehicle to be licensed along with the application form was attached at Appendix 1 of the agenda pack.
On the 23rd March 2022, the vehicle was presented at the Council’s testing station at Bradley Fold. The Council’s vehicle mechanic as part of the compliance test, checked the window tint on the vehicle to ascertain whether it was compliant with the Council’s Policy. It was found that the light transmission on the tinted windows was 10.3%. Attached at Appendix 2 of the agenda pack is a statement from the mechanic who undertook the vehicle compliance test.
Due to the vehicle’s windows not complying with the Councils Policy, the vehicle failed the compliance test. The Applicant therefore emailed the Licensing Service and stated that he wished for further consideration of his application as he believed that there are other vehicles licensed by Bury Council which have identical privacy glass. He stated that he has been told that the policy changed in November but stated that he didn’t receive the email regarding the changes. He went on to state that he had spoken to Mercedes about replacement glass but the only one they can provide is the privacy glass and if he is to change to other glass the Mercedes warranty is void. He stated that he has the invoice for the optional extras that were added when the vehicle was first ordered and has paid £25,000 for the vehicle and now would not be able to work.
During the meeting, the Applicant made reiterated his position regarding the glass. Members of the Committee clarified the position regarding current licenced vehicles operating with similar glass and it was confirmed that these would fail the tint meter test when they undertook their next test. It was also asked as to how a buyer would know the level of tint and the Committee was advised it would be in the specification or enquiries could be made of the manufacturer.
Mr Warraich on behalf of the Applicant advised the Committee that the glass in the vehicle is manufacturers privacy glass and the removal of this would also increase the insurance premium and may result in reduced safety as the same standard of glass may not be used.
Members questioned if the glass was an optional extra on the vehicle and the Applicant stated he had paperwork from the dealership to prove it was a standard fitting on the vehicle. The Chair also enquired if the Applicant had seen or read the emails sent from the Licensing Department about changes to the common minimum standards and pointed out that there had been a full consultation and all trade representatives had been informed of the changes, but the Applicant could not recall the email.
Mr Warraich in summing up again commented that if the privacy glass was replaced the insurance premium would increase due to vehicle modification and thinks it would compromise the safety of the vehicle along with the considerable costs for the Applicant. He felt this was a special circumstance and said the trade did update the new rules on social media.
Delegated decision:
The Committee carefully considered the report, and oral representations by the Applicant and his representative and after giving due consideration to the application the Committee resolved, to refuse to grant the vehicle licence application.
The reasons for the Committee’s decision were as follows:
· The reasons behind the introduction of the standard were to ensure that;
o all licensed drivers and vehicles could be properly monitored by the police and enforcement officer and this was hampered by tints below 20% light transmission
o public safety including for vulnerable people who may feel unsafe in a vehicle that they could not be seen in and which may appear dark inside
· The vehicle was purchased 4 months after the minimum licensing standards were introduced
· Minimum licensing standards had undergone extensive consultation with the taxi trade prior to introduction, had been the subject of a number of reports to Licensing Committee and then to the Council over many months and also individual emails had been sent to all current holders of vehicle licenses including the Applicant vehicle.
· It was the Applicants responsibility to ensure his vehicle meets the required standards
· The Licensing Service would have provided advice if asked for it.
Supporting documents: