Licensing (Miscellaneous) Sub-Committee – 30 January 2014

Chair:  Councillor K Vickers
Venue:  Civic Centre, Ashby Road, Scunthorpe
Time:  10 am

AGENDA

1.  Substitutions.

2.  Declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests and Personal or Personal and Prejudicial Interests, and significant contact with Applicants, Objectors or Third Parties (Lobbying), if any.

3.  To take the minutes of the special meetings held on 5 December 2013 as a correct record and authorise the chair to sign.

4.  Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 Town Police Clauses Act 1847 – Application for a Private Hire Vehicle Drivers Licence – Mr Jonathan Neil Maddison.

The public are likely to be excluded from the meeting for consideration of the following item (item 5) on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

5.  Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 Town Police Clauses Act 1847 –Review of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Vehicle Drivers Licence – Mr S  – EXEMPT

6.  Any other items which the Chair decides are urgent by reason of special circumstances which must be specified.

MINUTES

PRESENT:  Councillor K Vickers in the chair

Councillors Armitage, Ellerby and Glover.

The sub-committee met at the Civic Centre, Scunthorpe.

1146  DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS, PERSONAL OR PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS AND SIGNIFICANT CONTACT WITH APPLICANTS, OBJECTORS OR THIRD PARTIES (LOBBYING) -There were no declarations of disclosable  pecuniary interests, personal or personal and prejudicial interests and significant contact with applicants, objectors or third parties (lobbying).

1147  (21)  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1976 – TOWN POLICE CLAUSES ACT 1847 – APPLICATION FOR A PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE DRIVERS LICENCE – MR JONATHAN NEIL MADDISON – The Director of Places submitted a report advising members of an application for a Private Hire Vehicle Drivers Licence to be determined by the sub-committee.

The report contained background information on the process for determining such applications, the information to be taken into account and the circumstances in which the sub-committee could refuse a licence.

The options available to the sub-committee when considering the application were:

 

  • To grant the licence as applied for with no additional conditions or restrictions other than those normally applied to such licences
  • To grant the licence subject to additional conditions or restrictions
  • To refuse to grant the licence.

Should the sub-committee refuse the application or impose additional terms, conditions or restrictions then the applicant may appeal to Magistrates Court within 21 days from the date on which he was notified of the decision. Should the Magistrates uphold the decision of the council, the applicant had further recourse to the Crown Court.

The procedure for dealing with such applications at meetings of the sub-committee had previously been circulated to members.

Mr Maddison attended the meeting, made submissions and gave an account of the events that had lead to his appearance before this sub-committee, and answered questions relating to the recorded incidents.

The sub-committee then adjourned for deliberation. When it reconvened the sub-committee –

Resolved – That the License be granted, as applied for.

1148  EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC – Resolved – That the public be excluded from the meeting for consideration of the following item (Minute 1149 refers) on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

1149  (22)  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1976 – TOWN POLICE CLAUSES ACT 1847 – APPLICATION TO REVIEW A HACKNEY CARRIAGE AND PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE DRIVERS LICENCE – MR S.

The Director of Places submitted a report advising members of an application for review of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Drivers Licence to be determined by the sub-committee.

The report contained background information on the process for determining such applications, the information to be taken into account and the circumstances in which the sub-committee could revoke a licence.

The options available to the sub-committee when considering the application were:

  • To revoke the licence
  • To suspend the licence for a set period of time
  • To add additional conditions to the licence (Private Hire only) or add conditions of obtaining a licence.
  • To warn the person regarding future conduct.
  • To take no action.

Should the sub-committee refuse the application or impose additional terms, conditions or restrictions then the applicant may appeal to the Magistrates Court within 21 days from the date on which he was notified of the decision. Should the Magistrates uphold the decision of the council, the applicant had further recourse to the Crown Court.

The procedure for dealing with such applications at meetings of the sub-committee had previously been circulated to members.

Mr S attended the meeting and was accompanied by his legal representative Mr K Hussein, Ali & Co Solicitors, Bradford.  Mr Hussein made submissions and gave an account of the events that had lead to Mr S’s appearance before this sub-committee, and answered questions relating to the alleged incident.

The meeting was adjourned for ten minutes whilst members sought legal advice.

When the meeting was reconvened the sub-committee considered a request to vary the procedure to allow a witness to be called to enable them to come to a more informed decision.  All those attending the meeting were in agreement.

The witness provided an account of the events and responded to questions from the committee members.

Mr Hussein was invited to sum up on the basis of what had been previously heard.

The sub-committee then adjourned for deliberation. When it reconvened the sub-committee –

Resolved – (a) That the licence be revoked; (b) that it be noted that the sub-committee had considered all of the evidence before them and on the balance of probabilities believed that the revocation was necessary in the interests of protecting the public, and (c) that it also be noted that consideration had been given to the vulnerability of the public in situations where they may be subject to coercion.  A taxi driver was in an extreme position of trust and customers put their faith in them at times when they were at their most vulnerable.  In the circumstances the protection of the public was paramount to the public.

(Councillors Armitage and Ellerby wished to be recorded as abstaining)

Reports