Agenda and minutes

Members will disclose any pecuniary and any other significant interests they may have in relation to the matters under consideration.

None.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Licensing Committee held on Tuesday 28 March 2023.

The minutes of the meeting of the Licensing Committee held on the 28 March 2023 were confirmed as a correct record by those in attendance.

Report of the Corporate Director Environment.

The Corporate Director Environment submitted a report to provide members with information to assist them at a hearing to consider a proposal from members of the licensed hackney carriage trade within Wyre Borough for a variation in the maximum fares which could be charged by hackney carriages licensed by the council.

The Senior Licensing Officer introduced the report. He explained to members that following the decision made at the hearing, a report would then need to be brought to Cabinet, and if agreed public advertisement would commence after this decision.

The hackney carriage fares were last considered in June 2022, and had been recommended with a slight amendment to the options; following the recommendation by Cabinet and subsequent advertisement, the fares agreed in 2022 came into effect on the 4 October 2022.

Proposals for a further variation were submitted by the trade in February 2023, with a trade-wide consultation launched in March 2023; the results, seen at appendix six of the report pack, showed a majority vote for option 3 given to the trade which was recommending increases of 15% for tariff 1 and 15.48% for tariff 2. The Senior Licensing Officer pointed members in the direction of appendices seven through nine, which included information on tariff pricing for neighbouring authorities.

The Chair asked members and officers to introduce themselves. He then asked the four attendees, representatives of the trade, to introduce themselves.

Members asked questions of the attendees over the reasoning behind the proposals. They asked about cost pressures for the trade and the impact of the most recent tariff rise.

The attendees expressed concerns about the dramatic increases on euro six vehicles, with maintenance costs rising to 27%. They mentioned that with minimum wage now increased to £10.42, staffing costs had increased dramatically as well. They explained that demands were not just beyond fuel, which had been a main point for the last proposed increase. The trade had shrunk, with many drivers retiring or leaving and there was a lack of incentive to attract new drivers. Many did not want to work the unsociable hours to meet the unmet demand of Poulton night-life, mainly due to financial and safety reasons. The attendees agreed that a better financial incentive would attract drivers to the trade, to replace those leaving, and in order to incentivise drivers to work the unsociable hours. In response to the question on the impact of the last rise, they stated that it had addressed internal costs but they had continued to struggle to recruit drivers. There had been no negative feedback from members of the public on the last rise.

The Chair thanked the attendees and asked them to leave the room while members deliberated.

The committee agreed that members of the trade could not be shielded from inflation, and that it was important to address staffing issues. However, they thought this would potentially not be enough to solve the unmet demand occurring during unsociable hours in Poulton. They were also concerned about members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

In accordance with Paragraph 11 of the Access to Information Rules in Part 4 of the Council’s Constitution, the Chief Executive has determined that the report submitted under item 5 of this agenda is “Not for Publication” because it contains “exempt information”, as defined in Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

If the Committee agrees that the public and press should be excluded for this item, it will need to pass the following resolution:

“That the public and press be excluded from the meeting whilst agenda item 5 be considered, as it refers to exempt information as defined in category 1 (information relating to any individual) of Part 1 of Schedule 12(a) of the Local Government Act, 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Variation Order 2006 and, that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information”.

In accordance with Paragraph 11 of the Access to Information Rules in Part 4 of the Council’s Constitution, the Chief Executive had determined that the reports submitted under items 6 and 7 of the agenda were “Not for Publication” because they contained “exempt information”, as defined in Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

The Committee passed the following resolution: “That the public and press be excluded from the meeting whilst agenda items 6 and 7 were being considered, as they referred to exempt information as defined in category 1 (information relating to any individual) of Part 1 of Schedule 12(a) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Variation Order 2006 and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information”.

Report of the Corporate Director Environment.

This item was moved to item 6 of the agenda as members felt that they wanted more time to discuss the other item and did not want the driver to wait longer than necessary.

The Chair asked the officers and members of the committee to introduce themselves.

He then asked the driver to confirm that he had received all relevant paperwork and that he had been made aware that he could have been represented at the hearing. The driver confirmed this.

The Senior Licensing Officer introduced the report. He explained to the committee that the Licensing team had received complaints in relation to the vehicle the driver had been using, and that the vehicle was found to have been driven without a current MOT or valid vehicle licence. It was confirmed by the company secretary that the driver had completed 248 jobs between the 20 December 2022 and 25 January 2023, during which time the vehicle was not licenced and did not have a valid MOT, thus invalidating its insurance.

Councillor Ballard informed the committee that the driver was his barber, but that he did not feel like this would impact on his ability to make an impartial decision. The Legal Services Manager was satisfied with this.

The Chair asked the driver to introduce himself and address the committee.

The driver explained to members that he had taken on a second job in November 2022 to provide for his family as a taxi driver for a local firm. He said that in paying the hire fee for the taxi from the firm, he had expected them to be responsible and check the vehicle licence and MOT; he said that he had been unaware of any issues, and mentioned that the owner had also been unaware of this. He told the committee that he would not have used the car if he had known of its issues, and expressed his frustrations with having paid his hire fees. He said that he was still a new driver and still learning about the requirements of the job.

The Senior Licensing Officer asked the driver to confirm whether he had received and read the necessary paperwork when he had received his licence. The driver explained he had not, as he had forgotten to do so. The Chair asked for this to be clarified.

The Legal Services Manager asked the driver to clarify whether he had asked the firm’s office about the state of the car; he replied that he had asked many drivers and they had said that the car was fine to drive.

The driver summarised his case. He expressed remorse at the situation and told the committee he was still learning the job.

Following questions, the driver, the Senior Licensing Officer and the Senior Compliance/Licensing Enforcement Officer left the room whilst members considered the decision.

During discussion, it was decided that the committee wanted to hear from the owner of the firm, who was the subject of item 6 of the agenda  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

Report of the Corporate Director Environment.

This item was moved to item 7 of the agenda as members felt that they wanted more time to discuss this item and did not want the other driver to wait longer than necessary.

The Chair asked the officers and members of the committee to introduce themselves.

He then asked the driver to confirm that he had received all relevant paperwork and that he had been made aware that he could have been represented at the hearing. The driver confirmed this. He also asked the company secretary, who was also in attendance, to introduce herself to the committee.

The Senior Licensing Officer introduced the report. He explained to the committee that the Licensing team had received three separate complaints relating to the driver as well as two vehicles associated with him. He was also the named owner of the firm.

The officer explained to the committee that both vehicles registered to the driver had been allowed to complete jobs with expired MOTs, as well as one vehicle being seen plying for hire whilst its licence had been expired. In both cases, the licence and MOTs were only renewed following contact by the Senior Compliance/Licensing Enforcement Officer. The officer also emphasised the fact that as the named owner, the driver had allowed one of the vehicles to be used by another driver whilst not licenced or MOT’d. There had also been a complaint of the vehicle parking on double yellow lines outside a school, with a statement and picture attached within the report pack. He also noted that the driver had been brought before committee previously in 2019.

The Senior Licensing Officer asked the committee to review the information in front of them and consider the conduct of the driver and owner of the firm, and whether this warranted formal action. There was a potential for this to be referred to the Magistrates’ Court.

The driver addressed the committee. He stated that he had been a driver since 2015, and had only been owner and director of the company for six months, and had had little knowledge of the responsibilities.

He said when he had taken over the vehicles, he had not completed proper checks on them. He said that the dates on the notices of vehicle licence on the cars, usually presented as a sign or sticker, had been incorrect when he had then checked them online. He also had checked the MOT dates as the dates did not match the vehicle licence dates, with the assumption they would be the same. He also explained the details of the previous time he had been brought before committee.

He told the committee that the company secretary, in attendance with him, had taken over the administration of all vehicle licences and MOTs to ensure that all checks were done correctly in future for all drivers and vehicles.

The company secretary added that when the previous owner of the company had sold it, they had not completed a handover and had not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.