THE DECISION:

That Councillor R A Baker be elected Chairman of the Panel for the duration of the Hearing.

(Councillor R A Baker in the Chair)

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.8 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 Panel considered whether any action needed to be taken against a hackney carriage and private hire driver licence holder (“Mr B”).

Alternative options considered:

The Panel considered all of the options outlined in paragraph 7.1 of the Executive Director’s report.

The Panel concluded that a sanction less severe than a complete revocation would adequately serve the interests of the public but it was not satisfied that a warning would adequately address the concerns raised. 

The reason for the decision:

The Panel considered evidence of an allegation that on 2^nd September 2015 Mr B had carried five passengers (two adults and three children) from Northallerton Railway Station in a hackney carriage vehicle which was only licensed to carry up to four passengers.

The Panel considered the report of the Executive Director, the officer’s statement, the complainant’s statement, the CCTV footage and the oral representations of Mr B, having due regard to the Council’s Vehicle and Driver Licensing Policy and the relevant legislation.  The Panel reached the following conclusions:

·         The Panel concluded that five passengers were carried in the vehicle at the material time and this was accepted by Mr B prior to, and during, the hearing.

·         The Panel was concerned about the risks to public safety in light of the fact that one or more passengers would have travelled without a seatbelt and without sufficient seating space.

The Panel then considered the level of intent and reached the following conclusions:

·         The Panel was satisfied that Mr B had assisted the passengers by placing their luggage and pushchair into the boot of the car prior to driving out of the Railway Station.  The Panel concluded that Mr B should and would have seen the number of passengers entering his vehicle.

·         The Panel was satisfied that Mr B had checked the passengers’ seatbelts before driving away from the Railway Station.  The Panel concluded that Mr B should and would have seen the number of passengers inside his vehicle prior to commencing the journey.

·         The Panel was satisfied that Mr B had assisted the passengers at the end of the journey as the passengers were exiting the vehicle.  The Panel concluded that Mr B should and would have seen the number of passengers exiting his vehicle once the journey was complete. 

·         The Panel was satisfied that, according to Mr B, one adult was sitting on the front seat of the vehicle and that the other adult was sitting on the passenger side of the back seat.  Two children had occupied the middle and the driver’s side of the back seat.  When questioned by the Panel, Mr B expressed his opinion that the third child would have been sitting on the lap of the adult on the passenger side of the backseat.  The Panel concluded this would have given Mr B a clear view of the third child when he checked the passengers’ seatbelts. 

·         The Panel was satisfied that Mr B could not have overlooked the third child  ...  view the full minutes text for item LAHP.10