To consider passing a resolution under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 excluding the press and public from the meeting during consideration of item 3 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act.

That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public were excluded from the meeting during consideration of the item of business at minute no LAHP.18 on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act as the Panel was satisfied that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.

Report of the Director of Leisure and Environment (Acting)

The subject of the decision:

The Director of Leisure and Environment (Acting) asked the Panel to consider whether the licence holder (“D”) was a fit and proper person to continue to hold a hackney carriage and private hire driver licence.

The Panel was made aware that D had informed the Council’s officers prior to the hearing that he had further evidence from another taxi driver to support his case.  According to D, the driver had overheard a conversation between two other licensed drivers in relation to an incident involving D on 6^th August 2016.  D had not produced any evidence in this regard and therefore he was asked by the Chair if he would like to seek an adjournment of the hearing to enable him to produce this further evidence.  D declined and wished for the hearing to proceed.

Alternative options considered:

The Panel considered the options in paragraph 6.1 of the officer’s report but, having concluded that D was not a fit and proper person to hold a hackney carriage and private hire driver licence, the only suitable option was to revoke D’s licence.

The Panel was satisfied that nothing less than revocation, including issuing a warning or a suspension, would adequately serve the interests of the public and address the concerns raised.

The reason for the decision:

The Panel considered the officer’s report, the written and oral representations of the Council’s Enforcement Officer and another licensed driver (“X”), D’s written and oral representations and D’s character references.  The Panel also had due regard to the Council’s Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy and the relevant legislation. 

The Panel considered evidence from the Council’s Licensing Enforcement Officer who had investigated complaints made by D and X regarding an incident at Thirsk Railway Station on 6^th August 2016 where both taxi drivers (D and X) and two passengers (“Mr and Mrs Y”) were present. 

D raised concerns about the delay between his complaint being made and the Enforcement Officer making contact with Mrs Y.  The Panel noted that the Enforcement Officer had spoken to Mrs Y on 10^th August 2016, which was the same day that D made the complaint.  Mrs Y had asked the Enforcement Officer to call back on 15^th August 2016 as she was on holiday until then.  The Enforcement Officer spoke to Mrs Y on 15^th August 2016 who provided the Officer with her account of the incident on 6^th August 2016.  Mrs Y had initially agreed to give her account in writing but, on 17^th August 2016, she insisted that she had already told the Enforcement Officer the facts and she subsequently disengaged from the process.  The Panel was satisfied that the Enforcement Officer was a reliable witness and had acted appropriately in carrying out his investigation.  The Panel was satisfied that the Enforcement Officer had made reasonable attempts to obtain a written account and that he had accurately conveyed Mrs Y’s verbal account of the incident.  ...  view the full minutes text for item LAHP.18