Report of the Executive Director

The subject of the decision:

The Panel was asked to consider whether to grant or refuse an application for a hackney carriage and private hire driver licence submitted by the applicant (“Mr J”).  The procedure to be followed was appended to the agenda.

Alternative options considered:

The Panel concluded that it was not satisfied the applicant was a fit and proper person and refused to grant the application for a hackney carriage and private hire driver licence.

The reason for the decision:

The Panel considered the Executive Director’s report, Mr J’s application for a hackney carriage and private hire driver licence, the Disclosure and Barring Service enhanced criminal record check for Mr J, oral representations from Mr J, the Council’s Vehicle and Driver Licensing Policy, the Local Government Regulation Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Criminal Convictions Policy and the relevant legislation.

The Panel reached the following conclusions:

·         The Panel concluded that Mr J had incorrectly declared on his application that he had never been convicted of an offence.  The Panel accepted Mr J’s explanation that he had done this under his own assumption that his previous convictions would be considered “spent” for the purposes of the application.  Mr J accepted he did not take steps to clarify the requirements of the disclosure section of the application form and had as a result failed to disclose his previous convictions as required.  The Panel concluded that Mr J’s false declaration on the application form was made out of neglect and was not a deliberate attempt to deceive. 

·         The Panel considered the Disclosure and Barring Service enhanced criminal record check for Mr J and was satisfied that the offences relating to dishonesty and violence were relevant for the purposes of determining an application for a hackney carriage and private hire driver licence.  The Panel concluded the convictions against Mr J took place many years in the past.  However, the number, frequency and type of convictions gave the Panel concern about Mr J’s fitness and propriety to hold a licence. 

·         When invited to make oral representations Mr J only made reference to his false declaration on the application form.  Mr J’s only other oral submission was in response to a question by the Panel about his character at which time Mr J gave details of the incident resulting in one of the convictions.  Mr J made no further written or oral submissions in relation to his application.

·         The onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that he is a fit and proper person to hold a hackney carriage and private hire driver licence.  The Panel concluded that Mr J did not provide sufficient evidence in support of his application to demonstrate that he is a fit and proper person to hold a licence. 

THE DECISION:

Taking account of the above and having given appropriate weight to the evidence the Panel reached the following conclusions:-

The Panel was not satisfied Mr J was a fit and proper person to hold a hackney carriage and private hire driver licence and the application was refused. 

The Panel noted that it would welcome a future application from Mr J provided as part of the application he could provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate he is a fit and proper person to hold a hackney carriage and private hire driver licence.