Agenda item

A report from the Assistant Director (Localities) is attached.

Prior to presentation of the report from The Assistant Director (Localities) Mr Charles Oakes of the Hackney Drivers’ Association Ltd, who attended the meeting and represented the applicant, Mr Majid, a licensed hackney carriage driver, enquired as to why this application was being dealt with in the public domain.  The Council Solicitor explained that the default position was to hear all reports as public reports unless there are grounds for making them exempt under the relevant legislation. Mr Oakes was given an opportunity to make representations as to why the matter should be in private and stated they were always dealt with in private.

                Mr Johnson, Head of Commercial and Licensing pointed out this was not the case as other similar matters had been dealt with on the same basis. Mr Oakes went on to comment that even matters dealt with in private would be dealt with in an open forum at the Magistrates Court in the event of an appeal. The Council Solicitor explained that the rules that apply to such matters are very different to those governing local authorities.

                Mr Oakes expressed surprise and stated that he was unaware that this application would be heard in public and was unhappy that he had not been forewarned of this. The Chair asked that Mr Oakes had received a copy of the agenda that had been posted to his home the week before.  Mr Oakes had received the agenda but had not had time to fully read the reports.

                   Members of the panel were then invited to decide whether they were satisfied that the matter should proceed in public and all indicated it should.       The Assistant Director (Localities) submitted a report relating to a hackney carriage vehicle licence renewal application which fell outside the Council’s current “5 fault rule” policy. The report set out the background to the application in terms of Licensing policy and the individual circumstances of the case. The Licensing Unit Manager reported that on the basis of the facts of the case, the Licensing Service had reasonably concluded that the application was not in accordance with Council policy. Consequently the application had been submitted to the Panel for a decision.

                   The applicant’s vehicle, a Citroen Dispatch registration number LC51 URT was first registered on 9 November 2001 and has been a hackney carriage licensed with Bury Council since 14 October 2005.  It was transferred into his name on 12 May 2011.  The current vehicle licence is due to expire on 12 October 2013.

                   On 10 April 2013, the applicant’s vehicle underwent a routine 6 month interim test at the Council’s test centre at Bradley Fold and failed the test with 9 faults and 2 advisory observations being identified.

                   Mr Entwistle, a vehicle inspector at Bradley Fold, also attended the meeting to answer points of detail.

                   Mr Oakes then asked for a brief adjournment to confer with his client over this matter.  This request was agreed by the Chair.

                   On returning to the meeting, Mr Oakes said the meeting could continue but that he had reservations on how the meeting was being conducted.

                   Mr Oakes also commented that had he been aware Mr Entwistle was to attend the meeting he would have prepared questions for him. The Chair asked Mr Oakes if he wished this item to be put back on the agenda to later in the evening to allow him and the applicant time to clarify and further prepare their case.  Mr Oakes stated he did not and that they would continue at this time.

                   Members then asked a couple of points by way of clarification of Mr Entwistle.

                   Mr Oakes was then invited to ask questions and questioned Mr Entwistle on all 9 faults and argued each point. The Chair stated that Mr Entwistle was ‘not on trial’ but offering his advice and expertise to the Licensing and Safety Panel. When asked, Mr Entwistle informed the members that he had first become a mechanic in 1960 and had been working for Bury Council for the past 15 years.

                   Mr Oakes stated the faults reported were only Mr Entwistle’s opinion and that he felt the majority of them were only minor. He pointed out that the previous tests on the vehicle had only revealed a small number of minor faults and that the vehicle may have passed the test had it gone to another testing station.  He requested that the Panel consider the circumstances of the applicant. Mr Majid had a family to support and he had to provide an income and he felt that the fact most of the current faults are minor did not justify taking the vehicle off the road and subjecting his family to financial hardship.

                   Members of the Licensing and Safety Panel asked various questions of the applicant. He was asked who had undertaken work to his vehicle and he stated it was a mechanic he usually used. He was also asked about whether he took pride in the condition of the vehicle and Mr Oakes stated that taxi drivers no longer took pride in their vehicles due to the passengers they carried in them. He went on to state that the majority of passengers let down others by damaging vehicles and the trade have to repair them.

                        Delegated Decision:

                   The Panel noted that the vehicle is over 10 years old from the date of first registration and 9 faults plus 2 advisory observations was

                   well in excess of the Council’s Policy known as the ‘5 fault rule’ as set out in the report of the Assistant Director (Localities).  Members of the panel accepted the evidence of Mr Entwistle and noted that even the historic tests referred to by Mr Oakes showed faults and suggested the vehicle had got progressively worse. There were serious issues identified with the vehicle and despite the representations made on behalf of the applicant, the Panel found no basis upon which to depart from the policy. In the interests of public safety, the Licensing and Safety Panel agreed unanimously to refuse the application.

                   (Note: The applicant was informed of the right of appeal to the Crown Court).