ALL THINGS LICENSING
Article by Mike Smith, Senior Specialist for Licensing and Community Safety at Guildford Borough Council and Vice-Chair of the Institute of Licensing South East Region.
Please note that this article represents my own views which are not presented as the views of the Institute of Licensing or Guildford Borough Council.
The Fit and Proper Test
In this months article I look at the concept of a ‘fit and proper person’ which underpins the local authority’s decision making when considering whether to grant a hackney carriage or private hire driver licence. This follows one of the more interesting discussions I had at the PHTM EXPO in May, with a driver who presented at the Institute of Licensing stand wanting advice about how to complain about their local authority.
After a short discussion to get to the bottom of the matter, it transpired that the driver had their licence revoked following an incident, which I will not elaborate on as the case may be appealed, although certainly presented an interesting set of circum- stances. Nevertheless, the local authority had clearly thought that the driver’s actions had fallen short of the standards expected and revoked their licence straight away.
Clearly only the driver will know, and the courts will decide, whether their actions leading to the revocation were deliberate or unintentional, although such cases present an interesting challenge to the local authority.
The task of licensing authorities to make decisions about the character of taxi/private hire drivers and applicants is a tough one. The law is clear that a council acting as licensing authority must not grant a hackney carriage (taxi) or private hire vehicle driver’s licence unless it is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold such a licence. This is legislated at section 51 (1) (a) (i) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.
Councils also exercise a disciplinary function over existing licensed drivers; section 61 of the Act also provides that a taxi or private hire driver’s licence may be suspended or revoked for a conviction involving dishonesty, indecency or violence; or a conviction or
66
failing to comply with the provisions of the Town Police Clauses Act of 1847 or of the relevant parts of the 1976 Act; or for ‘any other reasonable cause’.
To summarise, the council cannot grant, or allow a person to continue to hold, a driver licence unless they are convinced that person is safe and suitable to hold that licence.
It therefore follows that a licensing authority has an onerous responsibility in making sure that the threshold of suitability is met and maintained, and in making decisions the authority is holding the licensee to account as someone who can be trusted to convey a passenger in safety.
The most recent Statutory Guidance, and draft Best Practice Guidance sets out that passengers should be at the centre of a licensing authority’s taxi licensing policies and processes.
Everybody working in the licensing remit, be it councils or the trade, should acquaint themselves with the facts of the Rotherham case, which stands as an entirely preventable reminder as to what can happen when licensing fails to perform its safeguarding role. As the Casey Review into Rotherham noted: “The safety of the public should be the uppermost concern of any licensing and enforcement regime: when determining policy, setting standards and deciding how they will be enforced.” There is no area where this is more important than in the application of the fit and proper person test.
However the extremity of the appalling events in Rotherham should not distract a council from the job of protecting the public from more day to day examples of incompetence, carelessness or dishonesty, as it is only right that the public has the assurance it requires when using a taxi service. Part of that assurance means that complaints about poor behaviour will be acted upon so that public confidence in the service can be maintained. If the public does not have the confidence to use the service, then this leads to other dangers such as walking home alone after a night out.
Too often views from drivers I speak to show concern that they have not been convicted of an offence. Councils should have a policy on previous convictions, as the public will want to know that their driver is not
AUGUST 2023 PHTM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84
