LICENSING LESSONS... SEDGEMOOR DRIVER BANNED
AFTER FAILING TO DISCLOSE MOTORING OFFENCES
A taxi driver has had his licence torn up after he failed to dis- close three motor- ing offences. The driver, referred to only as Driver K, was called before a Sedgemoor District Council
licensing
panel onWednesday, August 15. The panel heard that the hackney carriage driver had failed to notify them of three separate motoring offences, which all took place within a five-month period. Following its deci- sion, the driver can no longer operate within Sedgemoor, and can-
not apply for a new licence for two years. The hearing was called to determine whether Driver K was still a fit and proper person to hold a hackney
carriage
driver’s licence. The panel heard that Driver K had previ- ously worked as a taxi driver in London before receiving a licence for Sedge- moor just under two years ago. Since receiving this licence, he had com- mitted three motor- ing offences bet- ween August 2017 and January 2018 – two of which had
resulted in convic- tions. Two offences in- volved Driver K speeding, for which he was convicted on both occasions, while the third offence involved him “failing to comply with traffic light signals”. As a result, Driver K had nine points on his driving licence – and had failed to notify the council within seven days of being convicted of any offence. A council spokeser- son said: “The council has a legal duty to protect the public and a person may
only hold a taxi driv- er’s licence if it is satisfied that they were a fit and proper person to hold such a licence. “Where an applicant has more than one conviction, showing a pattern or tenden- cy irrespective of time since convic- tions, serious con- sideration needs to be given to whether they are a safe and suitable person.” Driver K admitted in interviews with the council’s licensing officer that “at least one and possibly all” of the offences had been committed in
DRIVER REFUSED BURY PH LICENCE - DESPITE BEING FOUND NOT GUILTY OF SEXUAL ASSAULT
A taxi driver was refused a private hire licence after it came to light he had been accused of sexual assault - despite the fact he was later found not guilty of the allegations. According to the Bury Times, Bury Council chiefs heard that the applicant had been taken to court charged with two counts of sexual assault against a female passenger. The jury at the first trial could not reach a verdict and the fol- lowing year he was found not guilty on both counts. But Bury Council’s licensing and safety panel found that he was not a fit and proper person to hold a private hire
44
licence. The details - held by the police - came to light following an enhanced
applicant had al- legedly grabbed the 31-year-old
and DBS
check carried out when the applicant applied to Bury Council for a private hire licence. Minutes from the meeting
state:
“Although not con- victed, the panel was satisfied that the ver- sion of the events provided by Greater Manchester Police was on balance the version that it would accept. “The complainant had gone through the investigation and two trials and there was no basis upon which to doubt her version of events.” The panel had heard how, in 2015, the
touched her inti- mately without her consent. The woman alleged that the driv- er then tried to kiss her intimately, while telling her she didn’t have to pay for the journey. Addressing
the
licensing panel the applicant admitted agreeing to a £10 fare despite no pre- booking being in place. But he said the woman passen- ger had jumped into the taxi without waiting for it to stop first. The applicant went on to tell the panel that he has been a full-time taxi driver with Manchester Council since 2010
and never had any complaints against him. He also brought a number of charac- ter references to the meeting. Mmmm… Unfortu- nately a licensing authority has to weigh up the situa- tion in terms of whether the appli- cant was innocent
found “beyond
reasonable doubt” – and this person failed to meet that criteri- on. Once again, this would have been the ideal incidentto have been captured on CCTV – which of course is there for the benefit of pas- sengers as well as drivers, and may well have prevented the whole thing happen- ing in the first place. – Ed.
the hackney carriage while fare paying passengers were on board. The panel said that Driver K’s actions “demonstrated a lack of professionalism” and had served to “significantly
un-
dermine” his status as a trusted driver. Under official guid- ance, any applicant who has seven or more points on their licence for “minor traffic or
similar
offences” should not be granted a new licence until five years after the completion of any sentence. The panel, however,
decided on a shorter ban of two years in light of Driver K’s personal
circum-
stances. Mmmm… The driver’s licence has been revoked in this instance, quite rightly – not only for the nature of the motor- ing offences (two speeders and possi- bly running a red light) but dishonesty as set out in the leg- islation, for not de- claring these of- fences to the council. But they’re letting him re-apply for a badge after two years instead of five… is this appropriate? – Ed.
STRATFORD DRIVER’S LICENCE SUSPENDED
A taxi driver has had his dual driver’s licence suspended for a period of three months. Rakesh Singh first appeared before the Stratford-on-Avon DC’s Licensing Panel in November 2017 where he received a three-month licence suspension on the basis of his fitness and propriety to hold the licence. He had breached li- cence conditions including the use of a home-produced driver’s badge, in- complete operator records,
incorrect
display of a licensed vehicle badge and obstruction of the council officers car- rying out
their
duties. Chair of the panel said: “People
who use taxis across the district have a right to expect high standards.” Mr Singh appealed this decision atWar- wickshire Justice Centre in March 2018, butthe jus- tices upheld the decision and Mr Singh was ordered to pay the council’s costs of £3,655. Mmmm… A driver’s licence has been sus- pended for (only) three months, des- pite all his misdem- eanours. The council goes on about main- taining high stan- dards, and yet – albeit with him fac- ing a stiff bill for court costs – allow- ing this person back on the road after three months just doesn’t add up – Ed.
OCTOBER 2018
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 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88
