Agenda and minutes

To elect a Member to act as Chair of the meeting.

Decision

That Councillor Tim Grogan be elected as Chair for the duration of the meeting.

(Councillor Grogan in the Chair)

There were no apologies for absence.

All Members are invited to declare at this point any interests they have in items appearing on this agenda, including the nature of those interests.

There were no declarations of interest.

To confirm the procedure to be followed at the meeting.

Decision

The Sub Committee agreed the procedure for the meeting as outlined by 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 items 6, 7, 8 and 9 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.

Decision

That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public were excluded from the meeting during consideration of the items of business at minute no’s 6, 7, 8 and 9 on the grounds that they 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.

The Corporate Director, Environment asked the Sub-Committee to consider whether the licence holder was a fit and proper person to hold a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence.

Options available to the Sub-Committee

• To revoke the licence on the grounds of any reasonable cause if the licence holder was no longer considered suitable nor fit and proper to hold a licence.

• To suspend the licence for a specified period on the grounds of any reasonable cause if Members concluded that the appropriate sanction should be something less than complete revocation to best serve the interests of the public.

• To issue a written warning and/or require a further practical driving assessment if Members concluded that an informal reprimand would constitute sufficient sanction to best serve the interests of the public.

• To take no further action.

Decision

The Sub-Committee members considered all written and oral representations and taking into account all of the above, unanimously agreed that the licence holder remained a fit and proper person, within the meaning of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and therefore no further action was to be taken.

The Corporate Director, Environment asked the Sub-Committee to consider whether the licence holder was a fit and proper person to hold a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Dual Driver’s Licence.

Options available to the sub-committee

• The Sub-Committee may conclude that the licence holder was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence, in which case, it should revoke the licence on the grounds of any reasonable cause.

• The Sub-Committee may conclude that the appropriate sanction should be something less than complete revocation.  For instance, a suspension may, in the opinion of the Sub-Committee, constitute sufficient sanction to best serve the interests of the public. The Sub-Committee may therefore suspend the licence for a specified period of time on the grounds of any reasonable cause.

·       The Sub-Committee may conclude that an informal reprimand would constitute sufficient sanction to best serve the interests of the public.  The Sub-Committee may therefore decide to issue a written warning.

·       The Sub-Committee may conclude that the licence holder remained fit and proper and decide to take no action.

Decision

The Sub-Committee members considered all written and oral representations and taking into account all the above, unanimously agreed that the licence holder was not a fit and proper person and that their Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Drivers licence should be REVOKED; this revocation by virtue of section 61(1)(b) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

The Corporate Director, Environment asked the Sub-Committee to consider whether the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence.

Options available to the sub-committee

· If the Sub-Committee was satisfied that, on the balance of probability, the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a licence, it may grant the application.

· If the Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a licence, it must refuse to grant the licence.

Decision

The Sub-Committee was satisfied that the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a licence and decided to GRANT the application for a dual driver’s licence.

The Corporate Director, Environment asked the Sub-Committee to consider whether the licence holder was suitable to continue to hold a hackney carriage and private hire driver licence. 

Options available to the Sub-Committee

· The Sub-Committee may conclude that the licence holder was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence, in which case, it should revoke the licence on the grounds of any reasonable cause^.

· The Sub-Committee may conclude that the appropriate sanction should be something less than complete revocation. For instance, a suspension may, in the opinion of the Sub-Committee, constitute sufficient sanction to best serve the interests of the public. The Sub-Committee may therefore suspend the licence for a specified period of time on the grounds of any reasonable cause^.

· The Sub-Committee may conclude that an informal reprimand would constitute sufficient sanction to best serve the interests of the public. The Sub-Committee may therefore decide to issue a written warning.

· The Sub-Committee may conclude that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing, in which case, it may decide to take no action.

Decision

The Sub-Committee concluded that the licence holder was a fit and proper person, and that an informal reprimand would constitute sufficient sanction to best serve the interests of the public and decided to issue a written warning.

The Sub-Committee expressed concerns in relation to the licence holder’s ability to understand and communicate in the English language.  Accordingly, Members requested that the Licensing Authority, pursuant to paragraphs 369 to 371 of the policy, required the licence holder to undertake a language proficiency test.  The Sub-Committee further specified that the test should be arranged within 10 days, rather than requiring that it be completed within that timeframe.