The Licensing Officer:
a)
stated that following the Sub Committee hearing on 2 September
2021, further information was requested in relation to comments
made by the applicant before the Sub Committee could determine
whether the applicant was a fit a proper person to continue to hold
a licence
The Sub-Committee questioned the
applicant regarding further information received and received
responses from the applicant.
That the Licence holders Private
Hire Drivers Licence be revoked due to new evidence put before the
Sub-Committee.
The Hackney Carriage and Private
Hire Licensing Sub-Committee thought the licence holder to be
dishonest and not a fit and proper person to hold a Private Hire
Driver Licence for the following reasons:
- The licence holder seemed to change
his mind when asked difficult questions or about inconsistencies
with his version of events.
- The Sub-Committee were confused as
to how the guilty plea could have been entered to the court without
the licence holder’s knowledge.
- The licence holder admitted to the
Sub-Committee that his taxi was moving when the accident occurred
but stated that he was stationery at the previous Sub-Committee and
denied causing the accident. Whilst this may seem like a minor
detail, the inconsistencies in the license holder’s version
of events at both committees was troubling to the Sub-Committee
particularly as both committees were heard within a short space of
time. During the hearing the licence holder did admit causing the
accident and apologised for this despite initially denying causing
the accident.
- At the previous Sub Committee, the
licence holder denied that he left the car park by a route marked
no exit however at this hearing he confirmed that he had done this
but that he hadn’t seen the no exit sign.
- During the previous hearing the
Sub-Committee expressed concern that the license holder had failed
to report the incident to the licensing authority. During this
hearing the licence holder stated that he had provided the
Licensing Officer with some information, to which the Licensing
Officer confirmed that this had not been the case.
- At the last hearing the Sub
Committee decided to allow him to keep his licence (with
conditions) because they believed that he had “conducted
himself correctly at the time of the accident in reporting it to
his employer including providing his employer with the contact
details of the two witnesses”. An email from his employer now
suggested that this was not the case.
- At the last hearing the Sub
Committee decided to allow him to keep his licence (with
conditions) because they believed that “following the
accident he had done everything correctly in relation to the
accident”, however, the email from his employer now
contradicted this as they were now faced with contradicting
statements given by the licence holder regarding how his employer
was notified of the accident.
8.
The sub-committee found that the licence holder was being
dishonest to them as his accounts of the accident and his actions
following the accident kept changing, there were discrepancies
between what the licence holder was telling the committee and the
oral evidence of the licensing officer and in the email from his
current employer and they were struggling to establish which
version of events put forward by the licence holder was the truth.
The Sub-Committee found that on the balance of probabilities he was
being dishonest.