Agenda and minutes

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

None.

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Constitution, the Chief Executive has determined that the report submitted under items 4 and 5 of this agenda are “Not for Publication” because they contain “exempt information”, as defined in Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.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 these items, it will need to pass the following resolution:

“That the public and press be excluded from the meeting whilst agenda items 4 and 5 be considered, as they refer 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the Chief Executive had determined that the report submitted under agenda items 4 and 5 of the agenda were “Not for Publication”, as defined in schedule 12 A of the Local Government Act 1972.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 4 and 5 were being considered, as they referred to exempt information as defined in category 1 (information relating to any individual) Variation Order 2006 and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.”

The Committee decided to hold the member’s debate for both items together as the proprietor for both cases was the same person.

Report of the Director of Environment.

The Chair, Councillor Birch introduced the Committee and the officers attending the meeting.

The proprietor introduced himself. The Chair ensured that he had received all necessary information and paperwork for the hearing and checked that he knew he could have been represented at the hearing.

The Senior Licensing Officer introduced the report. He explained that the vehicle was required to undergo additional checks on 10 October 2024 to assess whether the proprietor had been maintaining the vehicle properly. He added that following a full vehicle examination and a vehicle compliance inspection from officers at the Copse Road Depot, the vehicle had the anti-roll bar fitting missing from its nearside and a leaking exhaust system. He addressed that the DVSA testing officer issued the proprietor with a notice immediately prohibiting all driving and towing of the vehicle on public roads, and that the prohibition for use of this vehicle was lifted after the vehicle passed an MOT test on 14 October 2024.

The Senior Licensing Officer responded to Councillor Leigh’s question regarding how common it was for the Council to issue a stop notice, and if that was an indication of severity.

The proprietor addressed the Committee. He stated that the vehicle was purchased recently, was in good condition, and prior to vehicle testing the driver of the vehicle hadn’t raised any concerns to himself or a garage regarding a fault on the vehicle. He suggested that someone was potentially sabotaging his vehicles.

Councillor Leigh addressed the proprietor’s previous appearance before the Licensing Committee, where the committee decided to take no further action against him for failing to properly maintain another of his licensed vehicles. Councillor Leigh then asked him what he would do differently in future to ensure his vehicles were maintained. The proprietor explained that he had purchased a new vehicle as he had mentioned in his previous appearance he would. He added that he planned to purchase a new fleet but that this would be a slow process. The Chair confirmed with the proprietor that these replacement vehicles would been more modern replacements with less milage.

The Chair asked a question regarding the frequency of servicing. The proprietor stated that he took most of his cars to a garage at least every 1 to 2 months to be checked over. The Senior Solicitor asked how often the vehicle being considered had been serviced from April 2024 (the date of its previous MOT) to date. The proprietor was unable to remember specific dates or produce evidence of servicing but stated that the car had been serviced within that timeframe.

The proprietor responded to additional questions from the Senior Licensing Officer and councillors regarding:

• Who purchased the vehicle and how long it had been owned for
• How often the cars are checked before being driven
• If he was putting the ownership to report any faults onto his drivers

The Senior Licensing Officer clarified for member’s benefit that the fault with the vehicle wasn’t something that would be clearly visible to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Report of the Director of Environment

The Senior Licensing Officer introduced the report. He explained that on the 10 October 2024, the vehicle failed a full vehicle examination and vehicle compliance inspection. He clarified that when presented the vehicle had a fault with its braking system and that the brakes were only operating at 7% capacity. He added that the DVSA testing officer issued the proprietor with a notice immediately prohibiting all driving and towing of the vehicle on public roads. He provided that the notice further outlined that the prohibition would remain in force until removed by prior appointment at any MOT Testing Station authorised to test that class of vehicle and addressed that at the time of writing the report there was no evidence that the proprietor had taken steps to address the prohibition of use.

The proprietor responded to questions from councillors regarding:

• If the car was still off the road or if it had since been repaired
• Where was the car currently
• What was his intention with the vehicle
• How long after the issues were noticed did the vehicle remain on the road
• How did the drivers not notice the issues with the brakes

In response to concerns raised by Councillor Leigh, the Senior Licensing Officer and the Senior Solicitor confirmed with the proprietor that the vehicle had been in use from July to September but following September it hadn’t been driven due to it repeatedly breaking down.

The Senior Solicitor questioned when the proprietor purchased the replacement vehicle, and why a switch hadn’t occurred.

The proprietor was invited to summarise his case.

The proprietor and the Senior Licensing Officer left the room to allow the Committee to discuss their recommendation in private session.

In reaching its decision, the committee had regard to:

1. The Council’s own Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Policy

2. The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

The Licensing Committee then reconvened, and the Chair announced the decision.

Decision

The hackney carriage licence was revoked under section 60 (1) Local Government (Miscellaneous provisions) Act 1976

The licence holder had been in business for a number of years and was aware of the expectations of the Council concerning vehicle standards. On the 1 October 2024, the licence holder had agreed at the Licensing Committee to maintain his vehicles. To protect the public vehicles, require on-going maintenance during the period of a licence. The Licensing Committee was satisfied that this vehicle was not being maintained to the necessary standard to ensure public safety. The Committee had no confidence that changes would be made.