search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
FIT AND PROPER


DUDLEY BARS DRIVERS OVER REVOKED LICENCES AND FORGED DOCUMENTS


Minutes of Dudley’s Council’s Taxi Committee have provided an insight into a string of “incredible” licence applications and reviews. The records detail a recurring theme of the failure of applicants to disclose criminal histories or legal troubles. In February, AM saw their appli- cation rejected after the com- mittee discovered previous convictions, including “dishonesty,” which had been omitted from the official form. Similarly, in March, SM’s licence review found that his driving licence had been revoked, and he had failed to declare an ongoing case at Birmingham


Magistrates’ Court. Consequently, his taxi licence was revoked “in the interests of public safety.” The committee also dealt with: Inappropriate conduct: in July, driver MAR was ruled unsuitable after failing to


explain


“inappropriate conduct towards female passengers and plying for hire.” Uber forgery: also in July, driver YM was blocked from renewing his licence


after he committed a


“serious offence by submitting false documents to Uber.” Multiple offences: In April and September, drivers AA and SB both saw their licences revoked


following “numerous offences” and the discovery that their DVLA licences were no longer valid. The committee emphasised that public safety remains the priority. In many cases, it was not just the original offences that led to bans, but the drivers’ attempts to hide them. While some drivers could retain their licences after review, they were issued “stern warnings about future behaviour.” However, for those such as AA and SM, the committee was unmoved by their explanations, concluding that their history of non-disclosure and legal disqualification made them a risk to the community.


CORNWALL CABBIES LOSE LICENCES AFTER DRUG DRIVING ARRESTS AND SPEEDING SPREE


Several taxi drivers in Cornwall have had their licences revoked or refused following serious mis- conduct, including being arrested for driving on cocaine and then smashing into cars, according to minutes from Cornwall Council’s licensing sub-committees. An urgent driver sub-committee on November 13 heard details of two separate cases where drivers had their licences revoked “in order to promote public safety due to the conduct of the driver.” Driver A had been arrested for driving while unfit through drink/ drugs and possession of a con- trolled substance. Police evidence stated Driver A had been driving his HC and “had driven into stop- ped vehicles” and “had admitted to taking cocaine.” The driver denied


48


taking cocaine, claiming he had found the drug in his vehicle and was confused at the time. Driver B, who was not present, had their licence revoked for almost exactly the same reasons, including being arrested for driving while unfit through drink/drugs and possession of a controlled substance. Police stated that Driver B had been driving his taxi at the time, “admitted to taking cocaine” and was “found in possession of drugs in his vehicle.” In both cases, members noted the drivers’ submissions that they’d not yet been charged as they were awaiting blood test results. Separately, on October 31, Driver E had his licence


revoked with


“immediate effect” after he failed a roadside drug test, testing positive


for cannabis and cocaine. Councillors noted he was awaiting blood test results but felt the roadside failure was “serious and impacted on public safety.” Other drivers faced consequences for different reasons: Driver D had his licence renewal refused after receiving “nine points for speeding within a one-month period.” The committee was concerned by this “pattern of behaviour,” noting that the nine points related to three separate occasions. Driver D had also “failed to notify the council of any of the endorsements” despite it being a licence condition. Applicant C was refused a new HC and PH licence after HR Safe- guarding stated they did not consider the applicant to be a suitable taxi driver.


JANUARY 2026 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