Report of the Director of Law and Governance (Monitoring Officer)

The Panel considered a request from the applicant to adjourn the hearing on the basis that he would not be given a fair hearing as two of the Panel Members had been sat on the Panel that had refused his previous private hire vehicle application on 20^th June 2017.  The Panel was satisfied that there was no bias (or even appearance of bias) as none of the Panel Members had predetermined any part of the current application, that each Panel Member had attended the hearing with an open mind and that the specific circumstances of the applicant’s case would be considered on its individual merits.  Therefore, the Panel refused the applicant’s request for an adjournment and the Panel notified the applicant of the reasons.

Following the Panel’s decision to refuse to grant an adjournment the applicant informed the Panel that he intended to leave the hearing.  The Panel informed the applicant that the matter may be determined in his absence.  The applicant remained present for the entire hearing.

The subject of the decision:

The Director of Law and Governance asked the Panel to consider whether to grant or refuse an application for the renewal of a private hire vehicle licence.

Alternative options considered:

The Panel considered granting the application but concluded that the specific circumstances of the case were not sufficient to justify a departure from the Council’s Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy.

The reason for the decision:

The Panel considered the officer’s report, the applicant’s representations, the Council’s Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy and the relevant legislation.

The Panel noted that the Council’s policy generally opposes the grant of a licence in respect of vehicles over the age of ten years.  The Panel noted that vehicle in question was first registered 12 years and 6 months ago.  The Panel noted that the vehicle in question met the mechanical standards set out by the policy.

The applicant indicated that his private hire business relied exclusively on school contract work.  The applicant informed the Panel that his business model would provide sufficient grounds to justify making an exception to the general age limit prescribed by the Council’s policy.

The applicant made reference to a number of contracts awarded to the applicant by North Yorkshire County Council due to expire in 2018 and 2019.  The applicant informed the Panel that the tenders for the school contracts were won prior to the implementation of the age limit and were based around a business model of using older vehicles.  The applicant informed the Panel that he intended to honour his contractual obligations before investing in a new fleet of younger vehicles.  The applicant informed the Panel that the refusal of a licence would be unfair as he could not afford to buy new vehicles from the proceeds of his existing school contracts. The applicant also informed the Panel that some of his contracts involved journeys to rural areas of the district.

The Panel noted that many hackney carriage and  ...  view the full minutes text for item LAHP.11