LICENSING AND APPEALS SUB-COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Sub-Committee held on 8
June 2011 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at
10.00am.
1
Sub-Committee
Mr P W High (Chairman)
Mr R Shepherd
Mrs A C Sweeney
Members in Attendance
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mr R Reynolds
Officers in Attendance:
The Legal Advisor, the Environmental Health Manager,
the Licensing Manager, the Licensing Officer and the
Democratic Services Team Leader
Also in Attendance:
Miss Waterfield (for item 5)
Mr Ball (for item 6)
Miss Vail and Mr Gent (for item 7)
APOLOGIES
None received.
2
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None
3
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None.
4
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
Members decided that they wished to go into Private session to hear fully from the
Applicants and consider matters in confidence.
RESOLVED
That under S100 A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be
excluded from the meeting for Agenda Item No 4 on the grounds that it involved the
likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of
Schedule 12 (a) of the Act.
5
WK110003278:APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF A LICENCE TO DRIVE
HACKNEY CARRIAGE OR PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES IN NORTH NORFOLK
The Applicant was present.
The Chairman introduced the Panel and Officers and the Legal Advisor outlined the
procedure for the Hearing and the test that the Panel would apply - that is to satisfy
themselves that the Applicant was a Fit and Proper Person to hold a taxi driver’s
licence. She explained that, at a later stage, the Panel would withdraw to make their
decision. She would accompany them to provide legal advice but would not take part
in the decision.
Licensing Sub-Committee
8 June 2011
1
Members would also have to decide if the licence should be treated as a renewal or
as a new application.
The Licensing Manager presented the report which related to an application which
had been received from the Applicant for renewal of a Licence to Drive Hackney
Carriage or Private Hire Vehicles in North Norfolk. The Applicant had held a clean
licence for a number of years. Her licence was due to expire on 1 April 2011. A
reminder had been sent from NNDC. The expiry date was also on the Applicant’s
badge and paperwork. No application had been received before the expiry date.
When the Applicant realised her licence had expired she made an application on 19
April 2011. It was the practice of the Council to accept late applications up to a month
after the expiry date if there was good reason and, on this occasion, the application
was accepted. The application was incomplete and, in the course of investigations it
came to light that the Applicant had been driving for hire and reward on many
occasions since the licence expired and was therefore acting illegally.
The Licensing Manager recommended that if Members were minded to issue the
licence they should do so as a new licence rather than as a late renewal. They might
wish to attach conditions including the additional fee payable and a medical
examination. A CRB check would not be necessary as it had been carried out earlier
in the year. Members were reminded that the Applicant had been unable to earn
since April.
The Applicant put her case. She told Members that, because of family
circumstances, she had forgotten that her licence was due for renewal. As soon as
she realised she had contacted the Council. She had experienced difficulty filling in
the forms and apologised for the oversight. She was experiencing financial hardship
as a result of her actions. She believed that she was still insured even after her
licence had expired.
The Panel retired at 10.32 am to consider their decision and returned at 10.45 am.
The Chairman told the Applicant that the Panel had decided to grant the Licence. It
would be treated as a new licence which should be applied for within 28 days. Two
conditions were attached, that the Applicant should pay the balance and have a
medical examination. The Applicant was advised that if she had difficulty filling in the
forms she should ask for help from the Licensing Team.
RESOLVED
that the Applicant should apply for a new licence, subject to conditions, within 28
days. The conditions included a medical examination and payment of the balance.
PH027 – SUSPENSION OF OPERATORS LICENCE
The Applicant was present.
The Chairman introduced the Panel and Officers and the Legal Advisor outlined the
procedure for the Hearing. She explained that, at a later stage, the Panel would
withdraw to make their decision. She would accompany them to provide legal advice
but would not take part in the decision.
The Licensing Manager presented the report. Although the Applicant’s drivers licence
expired on 1 April despite the normal reminder being sent out an application for
renewal was not received until 19 April 2011. The application form was incomplete in
Licensing Sub-Committee
2
8 June 2011
that several key questions had not been answered or answered ambiguously and the
form was not dated.
The application was therefore rejected, the deficiencies were pointed out to the
Applicant and an amended form subsequently received. This was still not correct and
officers spoke to the applicant, clarification sought and amendments were duly made.
The normal checks and consultations in respect of that application were carried out.
Once the relevant paperwork was in order a new driver’s licence was issued. In the
course of investigations it was found that one of the vehicles licensed to the Applicant
had been used by his business associate driving for hire and reward on many
occasions during the period since her licence had expired on 1 April 2011 and
therefore operating illegally. It was likely that the vehicle insurance would have been
invalid for those journeys. The booking records held by the Applicant’s firm were
found not to contain the prescribed details required under licences issued by the
District Council. The Applicant’s Operator’s Licence had been suspended. It was
valid but he had breached the conditions of it. Members were asked to consider if the
Applicant was a fit and proper person to hold an Operator’s Licence.
The Applicant put his case. He told the Panel that what had happened was due to
oversight at a time when he was preoccupied by the health problems of close
relatives. He had lost a lot of money as the suspension of his Operator’s Licence had
put him out of business. He believed that the vehicle insurance would still have been
valid, despite the expired licence. Members inspected the insurance documents and
did not agree that this was the case.
The Panel retired at 11.10 am to consider their decision and returned at 11.23 am.
The Chairman told the Applicant that the Panel understood that he had been through
difficult circumstances, but that he had made a serious error and had allowed his
vehicle to be used unlawfully. Because of the Applicant’s personal circumstances
the Operator’s Licence would be suspended for 28 days although it would have been
possible to suspend it for 3 months.
RESOLVED
To suspend the Operator’s Licence for a period of 28 days.
6
WK/110000672 – APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF A LICENCE TO DRIVE
HACKNEY CARRIAGE OR PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES IN NORTH NORFOLK
The Applicant was present. She was supported by Mr Gent.
The Chairman introduced the Panel and Officers and the Legal Advisor outlined the
procedure for the Hearing and the test that the Panel would apply - that is to satisfy
themselves that the Applicant was a Fit and Proper Person to hold a taxi driver’s
licence. She explained that, at a later stage, the Panel would withdraw to make their
decision. She would accompany them to provide legal advice but would not take part
in the decision. This was an application for a late renewal as the licence had lapsed.
Members may choose to treat it as a new application.
The Licensing Manager presented the report. Although the Applicant’s licence had
expired on 29 March despite the normal reminder being sent out an application for
renewal was not received until 20 April 2011. The application was incomplete in that
the Applicant’s current paper driving licence had not been provided. The deficiency
was pointed out to the Applicant and the licence produced later that day.
Licensing Sub-Committee
3
8 June 2011
The normal checks and consultations in respect of this application had been carried
out. The relevant paperwork was now in order.
In the course of investigations it was found that the Applicant had been driving for
hire and reward on many occasions during the period since the licence expired and
therefore acting illegally. The Applicant had been advised of the offences committed
and informed that she may be prosecuted for them.
Officers had therefore declined to renew the licence under delegated authority but
had referred the matter to the Licensing Sub Committee as provided for in paragraph
5.5 of chapter 6 of the Council’s Constitution.
Mr Gent presented the Applicant’s case. He accepted the responsibility to renew the
licence before expiry was with the Applicant. He told Members that the reminder
letter had gone to an incorrect postal address and that there was confusion regarding
the Applicant’s correct address and the date of expiry of her licence. She had tried to
pay for her application in cash, but the Reception at NNDC had told her this was not
possible. This had caused further delay. The Applicant had held a licence for 20
years and her error was not intentional. The operator now had a system in place to
prevent errors of this nature occurring again.
The Licensing Manager asked the Applicant to confirm her postal address.
In reply to a question from the Licensing Manager the Applicant denied that she had
discussed her application with a Licensing officer, at her place of work. She told the
Panel that she had received her renewal papers indirectly with other correspondence
for her employer. She provided the Licensing Sub Committee with her full current
address.
In a closing statement the Licensing Manager reiterated that the Applicant hadn’t
applied for renewal when her licence expired. She had been driving illegally and
potentially putting the public at risk.
On behalf of the Applicant Mr Gent said that she hadn’t denied any of the points. The
Applicant hadn’t been able to earn for 2 months and this was also affecting the
operator’s business. The Applicant was a fit and proper person, although she had
made a mistake.
The Panel retired at 11.55 am to consider their decision and returned at 12.05 pm.
The Chairman told the Applicant that the Panel believed that it had been her
responsibility to renew her licence, and that she had been driving illegally. However,
her previous good record was taken into consideration.
RESOLVED
that the Applicant should apply for a new licence, subject to conditions, within 28
days. The conditions included a medical examination, CRB check and references
and payment of the balance.
The meeting concluded at 12.10 pm.
___________________
Chairman
Licensing Sub-Committee
4
8 June 2011