Agenda item

Report of Licensing Manager

The Committee received the report of the Licensing Manager to inform Members of the implication and status of a written warning issued to a hackney carriage or private hire driver or private hire operator.  The report had been prepared following a request from some members of the Committee as a result of complaint made by a hackney carriage driver at the recent taxi surgery.

It was reported that the Committee had adopted an enforcement policy to ensure that enforcement was carried out in a transparent and consistent manner. 

Members were advised that the issuing of a warning letter was considered to be informal action and at the lower end of the options available.  The use of warning letters was common across all the Council’s regulatory functions.  The advice given in a licensing newsletter for the trade regarding the implications of a warning letter was set out in the report.

It was reported that case law, and more recently the Rotherham report, had prescribed that all information available should be considered by Members when determining whether a driver was a fit and proper person to continue to hold a driver’s licence.  Any driver or operator aggrieved by a decision of the Licensing Regulatory Committee had a right of appeal to the Magistrates’ Court.

It was proposed by Councillor Mace and seconded by Councillor Edwards:

“That the following (based on the content of paragraph 1.8 in the report) be appended to paragraph 6.1(c) of the Licensing Enforcement Policy:

“Under the current procedure, A warning letter will remain on file for an indefinite period; however but it will not normally be referred to in any subsequent report to the Licensing Regulatory Committee if a period of 3 years has lapsed since it was issued and no other warning letter was issued within that period. unless there are exceptional circumstances.  

For example, if a warning letter was issued in June 2010 and then no further warning letters are issued until August 2013, the warning letter issued in 2010 would not be referred to.

However, if a warning letter was issued in 2010, a further warning letter in 2011 and then a warning letter in 2012, all 3 warning letters would be referred to in any subsequent report to the Licensing Regulatory Committee to show a pattern of behaviour.  If a person uses previous good character as a defence before the Committee, and refers to an earlier period during which one or more warnings letters had been issued but omitted from the report, those warning letters would then be disclosed to Members for their consideration.”

It was then proposed by Councillor Gardiner and seconded by Councillor Metcalfe that the following words be additionally appended to paragraph 6.1(c) of the Licensing Enforcement Policy:

“A suspected offender in receipt of a warning letter shall have the right to request within 21 days of receipt of the warning letter, an appeal hearing before the Licensing Regulatory Committee to ask for the warning letter to be withdrawn.”

Officers advised that both proposals should be deferred and should be the subject of a report to the following meeting of the Committee to allow officers to give due consideration to them.

Councillor Mace accepted the advice of officers and withdrew his proposal.

Councillors Gardiner and Metcalfe requested that Members vote on whether to consider Councillor Gardiner’s proposal at the meeting.  Upon being put to the vote, 3 Members voted in favour of considering the proposal at the meeting and 5 against, with 1 abstention, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be lost.

Councillor Mace then proposed that a report be presented to the next meeting of the Licensing Regulatory Committee that considered the implications of the two proposals tabled by himself and Councillor Gardiner.  The proposal was seconded by Councillor Edwards.

Upon being put to the vote, Members voted unanimously in favour of the proposition, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That a report be presented to the next meeting of the Licensing Regulatory Committee that considers the implications of the two proposals tabled by Councillors Mace and Gardiner.