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


BOLTON COUNCIL REFUSES PHV DRIVER’S LICENCE RENEWAL OVER ALLEGED SEXUAL ASSAULT


A PHV driver in Bolton had his licence renewal application re- jected by Bolton Council’s licensing committee after considering an allegation of sexual assault against a female passenger. The committee deliberated on the application and took into account a complaint from September 27, 2022. The details of the allegation, as set out in a report to the panel, stated that the passenger woke up to a horrifying situation: “The


passenger passed out in the vehicle, upon coming around, the driver was on top of her, grabbing and licking her breasts. “When the passenger managed to get out of the vehicle, she noticed her belt was undone as well as the button and zip on her trousers.” The applicant denied the allega- tions, but the committee “found the allegations to be credible and were concerned for those who travel alone in his vehicle.”


In coming to their unanimous decision to reject the application, the panel also considered: • Twelve previous complaints recorded by his PH operator.


• Alleged disregard of warnings given in 2021 and 2022.


• Previous breaches of his licence conditions before its expiry. The hearing proceeded in the applicant’s absence after he made a second request for adjournment and failed to attend.


STOCKTON COUNCIL REFUSES TAXI LICENCE OVER CRASH AND DRIVING OFFENCES


A Stockton taxi driver has been denied the renewal of his licence after a council committee heard conflicting accounts of a crash in Norton, where another motorist claimed the driver was “looking at his phone” moments before the collision.


The incident on Crooks Barn Lane, Norton, at 4:30 pm on March 3, was reviewed by


Stockton Council’s


licensing committee as the unnamed driver applied to renew his hackney carriage and private hire licence.


The other motorist involved claimed the taxi driver was “not paying attention to the road as he was looking at his mobile telephone”. He told the committee he was trapped in his vehicle after the collision and that the driver initially apologised and “accepted the collision was his fault,” only to deny it later. The complainant added the driver was “clearly looking downwards as


40


he turned the corner,” seemingly distracted by a mobile device or “pressing something, possibly a map.”


The taxi driver disputed the other motorist’s account, claiming the other car caused the crash by entering his lane at speed around a corner. While denying he was distracted, the driver did “admit looking at a device to see where he needed to go.” His representative, David Wilson, described the crash as potentially a “quirk of timing and fate” and maintained the driver was “not distracted in any way.” However, the committee also heard the driver’s licence showed 10 DVLA penalty


points. He


accepted he had committed two speeding offences in seven months and expected to accumulate seven or more points once those matters concluded, though he denied and was appealing a 2024 offence of failing to give driver information. In reaching a unanimous decision


to refuse the licence, the


committee noted the driver’s conduct and attitude. Minutes from the meeting state the driver “appeared to dispute matters repeatedly” and “did not appear to offer any mitigation in relation to the speeding offences that he accepted guilt for,” instead suggesting such errors were a “‘fait accompli’ for anyone driving for a number of years.” The committee expressed serious reservations, concluding that members “were not persuaded that [the driver] was a fit and proper person, as they found that they had too many doubts in relation to the matters of concern before them.” The committee added that they were “not satisfied that they would allow people for whom they care to enter a vehicle with [the driver] due to their doubts surrounding his history of driving-related incidents and offences.”


NOVEMBER 2025 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