Agenda and minutes

To receive declarations of interest from Members on items included in this agenda.

There were no declarations of interest.

There were no apologies.

To resolve that the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business because it is likely that there will be disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1, 2 and 7 in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Resolved: -              That the public be excluded from the meeting during

consideration of the following items because it is likely that there will be disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1, 2 and 7 contained within Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act, 1972

Driver – Mr EO

The Committee considered an application by applicant EO for a new Dual Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Drivers licence.  Applicant EO had a conviction which fell within the Councils guidelines for the relevance of convictions.  Applicant EO attended the meeting and explained the circumstances surrounding the offence which did not occur in a licensed vehicle.  Members were reassured that this incident would not happen again.

Resolved: That applicant EO be issued with a Dual Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Drivers licence together with a warning letter.

Driver – Mr MA

The Committee considered a report concerning applicant MA, a current Dual Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensed driver.  Applicant MA had failed to notify the Authority of a relevant conviction within the 7 day time period, as set out in the Policy. Applicant MA attended the meeting and explained that due to a lack of knowledge the incident was not reported within the time period specified, although this was carried out when the correct procedure was explained by a colleague.

Committee carefully considered the circumstances and the lack of knowledge, taking into account that the applicant did not have the support of an operating base.

Resolved:  That applicant MA be sent a warning letter.

Driver – Mr NDWL

The Committee considered a renewal application received from applicant NDWL for a Dual Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence.  Applicant NDWL had not informed the Authority of a relevant conviction within the time period specified in the Policy.  Applicant NDWL attended the Committee and was represented by Mr Trevor Colclough of Sid’s Private Hire who spoke on behalf of the applicant.

The solicitor emphasised to Mr Colclough, as the manager of a private hire operating company, the need to publicise the requirements of the Authority’s policy.

The Committee carefully considered the information given by the applicant and decided to grant the licence, conditionally.

Resolved:     That, on the condition that there are no further incidents, applicant NDWL be issued with a 12 month Dual Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence, to be renewed administratively after this time for the remaining 2 year period of the licence.

Driver – Mr PW

The Committee considered a new application received from applicant PW for a Private Hire Vehicle Licence together with a request for exemption from displaying plates, signage, and badge and door signs for the Private Hire Vehicle.  Applicant PW attended the Committee and explained the background to the lateness of the application for renewal of the licence previously granted.  The Committee considered the circumstances surrounding the application and the age of the vehicle and decided to apply the requirements of the Policy in relation to the exemption requested.  

Resolved:     That the application be refused.

Driver – Mr TM

The Committee considered a report concerning applicant TM the holder of a current Dual Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Drivers Licence.  Applicant TM had notified the Authority of a conviction that fell within the guidelines for the relevance of convictions within the 7 day period, as set out in the Policy.

Applicant TM attended Committee and explained the circumstances surrounding the incident and members were reassured that this isolated lapse was very unlikely to occur again.

Resolved:     That applicant TM be sent a warning letter.

To consider any business which is urgent within the meaning of Section 100(B)4 of the Local Government Act.

There were no items of urgent business.