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.4 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 Executive Director

The subject of the decision:

The Executive Director asked the Panel to consider whether to take any action against a hackney carriage driver licence held by the licensee (“Mr E”).

Alternative options considered:

The Panel considered all of the options outlined in paragraph 8.1 of the officer’s report but, having concluded that Mr E was not a fit and proper person to hold a hackney carriage driver licence, the only suitable option was to revoke the licence. The Panel was not satisfied that a warning or a suspension would adequately address the concerns raised.

The reason for the decision:

The Panel considered the officer’s report, the witness evidence, Mr E’s written representations, the Council’s Vehicle and Driver Licensing Policy and the relevant legislation. 

Mr E had informed Hambleton District Council (“the Council) that he would not be attending the hearing.  No adjournment was sought and the Panel considered the matter in Mr E’s absence.

The Panel heard evidence in relation to the following matters:

Allegation 1

The Panel considered Mr E’s involvement in the use of a hackney carriage vehicle by an unlicensed driver on 2nd February 2013.

The Panel was satisfied that Mr E, as the holder of the hackney carriage vehicle licence, could have prevented the commission of the offence.

The Panel was not satisfied that the breach could be properly explained by Mr E’s claims that he had sold the vehicle the day before the incident.

The Panel gave appropriate weight to the fact that Mr E had not been convicted for permitting the use of the vehicle.  However, the Panel also acknowledged that, in order to prosecute Mr E of a criminal offence, Middlesbrough Borough Council (Middlesbrough BC) would have had to prove Mr E’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt whereas, in a civil case such as this one, a different standard of proof applies, namely the balance of probabilities.

The Panel found on the balance of probabilities that Mr E had permitted the use of a hackney carriage vehicle by an unlicensed driver on 2nd February 2013.

The Panel considered the length of time that had passed since the incident and it attached appropriate weight to the incident on the question of Mr E’s suitability to act as a hackney carriage driver.

Allegation 2

The Panel considered the alleged failure of Mr E to display a hackney carriage licence plate and driver badge on 16th October 2013.

The Panel considered Mr E’s letter dated 28th August 2015 and found that it conflicted with the officer’s report and the witness statement provided by an officer of Middlesbrough BC.

The Panel was satisfied that Mr E’s version of events had changed from the version given to the Council’s Licensing Team at the time of the incident and therefore appropriate weight was given to Mr E’s written representation in this regard.  The Panel accepted the account submitted by the officer of Middlesbrough BC and found on the balance of probabilities that Mr E was working at the time of  ...  view the full minutes text for item LAHP.4