Agenda item

SUSPENSION/REVOCATION OF HACKNEY CARRIAGE/PRIVATE HIRE DRIVER LICENCES

Minutes:

           1.      Licence holder 02/2018 attended the meeting and was represented by Mr Khan, Solicitor.

 

       The Chair outlined the procedure to be followed and the Licensing Unit   Manager presented a report submitted by the Assistant Director (Legal and Democratic Services), which explained that a complaint had been received regarding the client’s conduct by a young Asian female on 14 May 2018.

 

        The report stated that on 10 May at 5.45 pm the complainant had booked a taxi to take her Bury, to her home in Rochdale and when the taxi arrived, driven by the Licence Holder, she sat in the back seat.

 

        During the course of the journey, it is alleged that the Licence Holder asked personal questions about the girl and her family and on arrival at their destination, although no fare was payable as it had been pre-paid using the App, he turned to face her and told her that in future if she wanted a lift she could ring his private number.  The complainant stated that she felt scared and gave the driver her number and he rang her phone so she then had his number.

 

        The complainant had an injury to her knee and was limping and the Licence Holder asked to look at her knee and the swelling and then touched her knee and moved his hand up to her thigh and asked if her pants were tight and if they came down.  The complainant left the vehicle and immediately blocked the Licence Holder’s mobile number and told her Uncle, who is a taxi driver, of her experience and he told her to report it to Licensing and she also reported it to the Police and made a statement.  However, she did not want any further involvement as she was afraid of reprisal. 

 

        The crime write up from the Police was included with the report for information and Mr Khan provided the Licence Holder’s witness statement and character references, which were circulated to Panel members prior to the meeting.

 

        Mr Khan addressed the Panel on behalf of the Licence Holder and explained that on the whole the report was accepted, however, the Licence Holder denied asking if the complainant’s leggings came down and in relation to the impression given by the Licence Holder’s interview with the Licensing Officer, that the Licence Holder did not consider his behaviour to be inappropriate, Mr Khan stated that he did realise his mistake as there should not be any physical contact, however, as no interpreter was present at the interview, he felt that his statement has been misinterpreted by the interviewer.

 

        Mr Khan stated that no criminal proceedings have been taken against the Licence Holder and that the complainant did not perceive the incident to be of a sexual nature and that his touching her knee was intended to be more of a medical examination.  The Licence Holder explained that he had been an amateur wrestler in his childhood and was aware of sports injuries and          he was trying to ascertain what kind of injury the complainant had.  He accepted he should not have touched her knee, but maintained that it was nothing other than an investigative examination.

 

        Mr Khan explained that the client has been in the UK for 18 years with no criminal convictions and has been a taxi driver for 3 years, with no complaints or convictions.

 

        Delegated decision:

 

                The Panel carefully considered the report, the additional documentation and oral representations by the Licence Holder 02/2018 and Mr Khan 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 suspend the driver for four months and to require the Licence Holder to undertake a communications examination before his licence is returned.

               

     The Panel found as follows:

·         That the complainants version of events was accepted, there being no basis upon which to dispute her honesty.

·         That the Licence Holder accepted most of the allegations made.

·         That the allegations were sufficiently serious to merit due consideration and that it was due to the complainant not wanting to proceed that a further investigation had not taken place and it is directly relevant to a working role with members of the public.

·         The allegation made against the Licence Holder was of a serious nature.

·         That even based on the Licence Holder’s explanation of events, his behaviour had been unacceptable and unprofessional and not of the standard expected.

 

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

 

2.     Client 05/2018 attended the meeting and was represented by Mr Khan.

 

        The Chair outlined the procedure to be followed and the Licensing Unit   Manager presented a report submitted by the Assistant Director (Legal and Democratic Services), which explained that on 11 June 2018, Greater Manchester Police reported to the Licensing Service that the Licence Holder had been convicted of the offence of driving without due care and attention on 11 June 2018 at Manchester Magistrates’ Court for which he had received 6 penalty points and had been ordered to pay £660 costs, £150 fine £250 compensation with a £30 victim surcharge.

 

The Licence Holder was subsequently interviewed by the Licensing Service, 10 days after the initial intelligence was received.  The Licence Holder had not notified the Licensing Service of the conviction within seven days as per his private hire driver’s licence conditions. During the interview he stated that he was involved in a road traffic collision with a cyclist.  The incident

was witnessed by an off duty Police Officer who had recorded the accident on a dashcam. The matter went to Court and as the Licence Holder did not believe he was at fault, he had pleaded not guilty but was found so after a trial.  The Licence Holder stated that he had forgotten that condition 13 of his private hire driver’s licence required him to notify the Licensing Service within 7 days if his was convicted of an offence.

 

Mr Khan provided the Licence Holder’s witness statement, which was circulated to Panel members prior to the meeting and Mr Khan addressed the Panel and provided a character reference and his valid MOT certificate.

 

Mr Khan stated that it was unclear within the Licensing conditions and guidelines as to whether reporting a conviction to the Licensing Service was required within 7 ‘working’ days or 7 ‘calendar’ days.  He explained that the Licence Holder has been driving for 16 years and a taxi driver since 2012 with an impeccable record.  Unfortunately, the Licence Holder’s Grandmother passed away around the time of the incident which was another reason why he had not reported the conviction within the time required.

 

        Delegated decision:

 

The Panel carefully considered the report, additional documentation and oral representations by the Licence Holder 05/2018 and Mr Khan 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 admonish the Licence Holder as to his future conduct.

 

The Panel noted that:

 

·         This was a serious offence, but that its commission would not ordinarily result in referral to the Licensing and Safety Panel.

·         That the Licence Holder should be fully aware of the licensing conditions and what is expected of him as a private hire driver in Bury.

 

             3.    Members of the Licensing and Safety Panel agreed, following the request from the Licensing Unit Manager, that consideration of the matter regarding Licence Holder 06/2018 be postponed until the next meeting due to the Licence Holder having moved and the paperwork for the meeting being sent to his old address.