Agenda item

Report ENV914 from the Licensing Officer.

Decision

The Committee decided that the Applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a licence and that their Dual Hackney Carriage and Private Hire driving licence should be granted.

The Chairman introduced those present and confirmed the name of the applicant present who was in attendance with a friend.

The Licensing Officer presented exempt report ENV914 which concerned whether a driver remained a fit and proper person to hold a Dual Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Drivers Licence after having a licence revoked by another local authority.

Members were given the background to the report which concerned a renewal application in which the driver had disclosed that he had previously held a driver’s badge with another local authority which had been revoked.  Subsequent checks were carried out with the National Register of Revocations, Refusals and Suspensions (NR3) and the reason for the revocation was as highlighted within the report.

It was noted that there was not an automatic or legitimate expectation that licences would be renewed, especially when matters had arisen that may call into question whether a driver was a fit and proper person to hold such a licence.  Reference was made to Section 3.12.2 of South Kesteven’s Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy as highlighted within the report in relation to failure to notify South Kesteven following the revocation.

Clarity was sought in relation to the reason for the revocation but the Licensing Officer stated that he had no further details other than those shown in the report.

The Applicant offered to show the Licensing Officer and Committee the email that he had received from the Local Authority and the reason why their badge had been revoked.

The Licensing Officer then explained the process in respect of what was required of the applicant to extend the badge that he had with the other Local Authority which had not been undertaken correctly and therefore the badge had been revoked.

The Applicants representative then spoke on the Applicants behalf and gave the background to why the badge had been revoked.  It was felt that due to communication issues information was “lost in translation”.

The Committee asked the Applicant direct questions and the applicant indicated that he had difficulty reading and writing in English.

The Licensing Officer then gave his closing statement reminding the Committee to have regard to the representations made, the Council’s Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy together with the Department of Transport Standards and relevant guidance.

The Applicant indicated that copies of the English test that he had undertaken could be provided.

(10:50 the Licensing Officers and Applicant and the Applicants representative left the meeting)

Members considered the issue before them having regard to all relevant guidance and the representations made.  Concern was expressed about what had led to the revocation of the licence which suggested a lack of understanding and the Committee were concerned about communication by the applicant in an emergency.  It was also noted that the other local authority had not been helpful to the Licensing Team when contacted.  Questions were asked in relation to the English test undertaken as part of the test and the Licensing Officer was requested to return to the meeting to answer Members questions.  The Licensing Officer stated that if the applicant could provide evidence that an English test had already been completed then they would not need to undertake a further test. 

The Committee requested that the Applicant be returned to the meeting to answer further questions.

(11:05 the Licensing Officer and Applicant returned to the meeting)

The Applicant stated that they had taken the English test which had been carried out on a computer with an actual person.  A questions was asked about where they worked to which the Applicant stated they mostly worked in the Stamford area and a bit in the Peterborough area.

Reference to the English test undertaken followed and the Applicant was happy to provide the link to the Licensing Officer to access the certificate given.

(11:12 the Applicant left the meeting)

The Licensing Officer accessed the link and showed the certificate received to the Committee in relation to the English test undertaken by the Applicant.

(11:14 the Licensing Officer left the meeting)

Members further discussed the issue and following the Applicant returning to the meeting to discuss the English test, the Committee felt that their spoken English was good and the situation may have played a part in the Applicant’s demeanour at the start.     It was felt that the local authority had been obstructive and after listening to the Applicant speak conversationally Members felt that their licence should be granted but that it needed to be clear that if at any time, they did not understand anything they needed to ask.  It was proposed and seconded that the Applicant was a fit and proper person and that the licence should be granted.  On being put to the vote this was agreed.

(11:17 the Licensing Officers, Applicant and Applicants representative returned to the meeting)

The Chairman asked the Legal Advisor to read out the Committee’s decision.

The Licensing Committee considered the report provided by the Licensing Officer and representations provided by the Applicant.

The Committee was initially concerned that the Applicant may have difficulties communication if there was an emergency with passengers, however they had  provided proof of spoken English which met the standard expected of South Kesteven District Council.

The Committee therefore decided that the Applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a licence and that their Dual Hackney Carriage and Private Hire driving licence should be granted.

The Applicant was reminded of the importance of understanding the paperwork to ensure they were fully compliant with South Kesteven District Council’s Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing policy.

There is a right of appeal of this decision to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of receipt of written notice. 

(11:19 – 11:25 the meeting was adjourned for a short period of time)