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.19 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 Law and Governance (Monitoring Officer)

The subject of the decision:

The Director of Law and Governance (Monitoring Officer) 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.

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 D;

·           four character references in respect of D;

·           the written and oral representations of five witnesses (“V”, “W”, “X”, “Y” and “Z”);

·           the Council’s Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy; and

·           the relevant legislation.

The Panel considered D’s account in relation to an incident that allegedly occurred on the taxi rank at Thirsk Market Place on 17^th December 2016.  D informed the Panel that he was involved in a minor altercation with another taxi driver (“V”), which led to a verbal exchange between the two drivers through the windows of their vehicles.  It was accepted as a fact that V had sounded his horn whilst waiting behind D following D’s failure to move forward when a space opened up on the rank.  D then collected two passengers, one male (“W”) and one female.  According to D’s statement, he and W had observed V waving his hands, pointing at his mobile telephone and threatening to report D to the Council’s licensing team.  D stated that he asked “what’s the problem?” and V repeatedly told D that he was going to report him.  D then drove away with his passengers.  V alleged that D had given him a “dirty look”, which was corroborated by another taxi driver (“X”).  However, the Panel noted from the officer’s report that the seriousness of the allegations in this regard would not warrant any formal action being taken.

The Panel considered evidence from W in relation to the same verbal exchange between D and V.  W informed the Panel that V had been banging on D’s window.  However, no other witnesses (including D) made any mention of this or even of V leaving his vehicle.  Furthermore, the incident had not appeared in W’s letter submitted ahead of the hearing.  W also alleged that V had used abusive language towards D during their verbal exchange.  This allegation was denied by V and, as D’s statement made no reference to any abusive language at this stage of the incident, the Panel was not satisfied that D had been subject to any considerable provocation at this point.  The Panel noted that both V and W had made reference to previous disputes between themselves.  In light  ...  view the full minutes text for item LAHP.20