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.18 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 with immediate effect in the interests of public safety.

The Panel was not satisfied that any of the alternative options, including issuing a warning or a suspension, would adequately serve the interests of the public and address the safety concerns raised.

The reason for the decision:

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

The Panel was informed that the licensing team received a complaint on 11^th January 2022 alleging that D’s licensed hackney carriage vehicle had collided with another vehicle and failed to stop.  According to the investigating officer’s report of the incident, after initially denying that the vehicle had sustained any damage, D presented his vehicle for inspection at the Council offices.  At this time, the inspecting officer observed significant damage to the vehicle and the hackney carriage vehicle licence was subsequently suspended with immediate effect.

When asked by the Panel why he had not stopped after colliding with another vehicle, D said that he was disappointed in himself and just panicked.  The Panel noted that it is an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 to fail to stop following an accident or collision but acknowledged that there was no information to indicate that a criminal investigation had been initiated.  In any case, the Panel was extremely concerned that D had caused damage to another vehicle and failed to stop.

The Panel was also concerned about D’s claims that the vehicle was not damaged.  When asked why he had made these claims, D informed the Panel that the damage observed during the inspection was actually sustained in a separate incident when D hit a concrete post a few days earlier.  D confirmed that he had not reported this separate incident to the licensing team or his insurance company and he had not made any arrangements to repair the vehicle.  The Panel noted that, in accordance with the Council’s policy and D’s hackney carriage vehicle licence conditions, any such damage would need to be reported to the Council within 72 hours of its occurrence. The Panel was satisfied that D was aware of his responsibilities in this regard and had failed to comply.

The Panel was informed of a further incident involving D in November 2019. According to a police report, a pedestrian was struck by a vehicle being driven by D. D informed the Panel that he had assisted the pedestrian to her  ...  view the full minutes text for item LAHP.18