Please Contact: Linda Yarham
Please email: Linda.yarham@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516019
24 October 2014
A meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Committee of North Norfolk District Council will be held
in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer on Monday 10 November 2014
at 10.00 a.m.
At the discretion of the Chairman, a short break will be taken after the meeting has been running
for approximately one and a half hours.
Members of the public who wish to ask a question or speak on an agenda item are requested to
arrive at least 15 minutes before the start of the meeting. It will not always be possible to
accommodate requests after that time. This is to allow time for the Committee Chair to rearrange
the order of items on the agenda for the convenience of members of the public. Further information
on the procedure for public speaking can be obtained from Democratic Services, Tel: 01263
516010, Email: democraticservices@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Anyone attending this meeting may take photographs, film or audio-record the proceedings and
report on the meeting. Anyone wishing to do so must inform the Chairman. If you are a member
of the public and you wish to speak on an item on the agenda, please be aware that you may be
filmed or photographed.
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Mrs H Cox, Mrs A R Green, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr B Hannah, Mr
P W High, Mr B Jarvis, Mr P Moore, Miss B Palmer, Mr R Price, Mr R Reynolds, Mr R Shepherd,
Mr B Smith, Mrs A C Sweeney, Mr J A Wyatt.
All other Members of the Council for information.
Members of the Management Team, appropriate Officers, Press and Public.
If you have any special requirements in order to attend this meeting,
please let us know in advance
If you would like any document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format
or in a different language please contact us
Chief Executive: Sheila Oxtoby
Corporate Directors: Nick Baker & Steve Blatch
Tel 01263 513811 Fax 01263 515042 Minicom 01263 516005
Email districtcouncil@north-norfolk.gov.uk Web site northnorfolk.org
AGENDA
1.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
2.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
3.
MINUTES
(attached – page 1)
To approve as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Licensing and Appeals
Committee held on 15 September 2014 and also the minutes of the meeting of the
Licensing Sub-Committee held on 27 August 2014.
4.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should be
considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government
Act 1972.
5.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any of the
following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires that
declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable pecuniary
interest.
6.
LICENSING – CHANGES TO DELEGATED AUTHORITY
Summary:
(attached – page 11)
(Appendix A – page 15)
In light of the additional information provided to the
Committee that further consideration be given to altering
the current policy and practice regarding delegation of
authority.
To consider changes to the current delegation of
authority for revocation of a hackney carriage/private
hire driver’s licences in cases where there are serious
allegations / incidents
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
To allow Officers to revoke a driver’s licence when
matters of a serious nature arise where immediate
action is needed to safeguard the public
1. That the Head of Environmental Health be
authorised to immediately revoke a hackney
carriage and/or private hire vehicle driver’s
licence where it is considered to be urgently
necessary to safeguard the public.
and/or
2. That the Head of Environmental Health, in
consultation with the Chair (or Vice Chair) of
Licensing and Appeals Committee, be
authorised to immediately revoke a hackney
carriage and/or private hire vehicle driver’s
licence where it is considered to be urgently
necessary to safeguard the public.
3. That any decision made under the above
authorisation be reported to the next meeting of
the Licensing and Appeals Committee.
4. That where a hackney carriage and/or private
hire vehicle driver’s licence is revoked, but after
investigation a Licensing Sub-Committee does
not uphold the revocation, the licence be reissued and the pre-grant checks be accepted up
to the point at which they would have required
renewing had the licence not been revoked.
or
5. Leave current policy in place which could result
in legal challenge and failure to act quickly to
protect the public
Cabinet Member(s)
Councillor John Lee –
Portfolio Holder
Councillor Richard Price Chairman of the Licensing
Committee
Ward(s) affected - All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Gemma Faircloth 01263 516139 gemma.faircloth@north-norfolk.gov.uk
7.
UPDATE ON GENERAL LICENSING ISSUES
The Public Protection Manager will give an oral update on licensing issues.
8.
UPDATE ON TASK & FINISH GROUPS
The Public Protection Manager will give an oral update on task and finish groups.
9.
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
To pass the following resolution, if necessary:
“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be
excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they
involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph _ of Part I of
Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”
10.
TO CONSIDER ANY EXEMPT MATTERS ARISING FROM CONSIDERATION OF THE
PUBLIC BUSINESS OF THE AGENDA
Agenda item ___3___
LICENSING AND APPEALS COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Committee held at 10.00 am on 15
September 2014 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer.
Members Present:
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs H Cox
Mrs A Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr P W High
Mr R Price (Chairman)
Mr R Reynolds
Mr B Smith
Mrs A Sweeney
Officers in attendance:
Public Protection Manager, Legal Advisor and Regulatory Officer.
10
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mr B Hannah, Mr P W Moore, Miss B Palmer, Mr R Shepherd and Mr J Wyatt sent
their apologies.
11
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
12
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Committee held on 21 July
2014 and also the minutes of meetings of the Licensing Sub-Committee held on 30
July 2014 were approved as correct records and signed by the Chairman.
The Public Protection Manager reported that tattoo parlours were covered by the
Skin Piercing policy rather than Sex Establishments policy.
The Public Protection Manager updated the Committee with regard to Minute 7 of the
minutes of the Licensing & Appeals Committee held on 21 July 2014. The Council’s
Section 151 Officer had advised that it was not legally possible to call a meeting of
the Licensing Sub-Committee at short notice as legislation required five clear working
days’ notice to be given, and that a way forward was to give delegated powers to
Officers to revoke a licence to drive hackney carriages or private hire vehicles.
Following discussion on this matter it was agreed that a full report on this matter be
requested for discussion at a future meeting of the Committee.
13
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None.
14
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None.
Licensing and Appeals Committee
1
10 November 2014
15
LICENSING WORK PROGRAMME, INCLUDING TASK AND FINISH GROUPS
The Public Protection Manager presented the report which highlighted the current
issues and recommended a work programme for the Committee for the coming year,
relating to alternative trading, charitable collections, caravan sites and hackney
carriage & private hire. She suggested that task and finish groups be set up to
consider alternative trading and charitable collections as a priority issue. With regard
to caravan sites, the Public Protection Manager reported that officers would first need
to ensure that the information was up to date and possibly involve the Committee at a
later date in reviewing the standards.
Hackney Carriage & Private Hire
Mr P High stated that hackney carriage and private hire licensing had been dealt with
exhaustively, numerous meetings held with the taxi industry and a great deal of ill
feeling had been caused. He considered there was little point in going through this
process again.
The Chairman stated that there had since been changes in legislation, hybrid and
electric vehicles had been introduced and issues had been raised with regard to the
way engine size and power were expressed. There was now a taxi forum where
Council representatives met with the taxi trade.
The Public Protection Manager considered that the review would be a much shorter
and easier process.
Street/alternative trading
The Chairman stated that it was necessary to have policies in place for every aspect
of street trading, otherwise it would not be possible to enforce.
In response to questions by Members regarding roadside trading, the Public
Protection Manager stated that trading on private or highway land was an issue for
the landowner or Highway Authority. Highway safety issues were a matter for the
Highway Authority.
Members raised concerns regarding health and safety and food hygiene, given the
lack of toilet and hand washing facilities at many roadside sites. The Public
Protection Manager stated that food hygiene inspectors were responsible for
inspecting mobile catering vehicles, which were subject to the same legislation as
shops. Health and safety was the responsibility of the Commercial or Public
Protection teams and would be dealt with separately.
Mr B Smith asked if there was any legislation governing car boot sales, and referred
to the professional nature of some of the stalls, some of which sold new goods. The
Public Protection Manager stated that as they took place on private land, car boot
sales were not within the remit of the Public Protection team for licensing but would
be inspected by the Council with regard to food safety and health and safety issues.
Mr P High questioned the need for a task and finish group if the Council could not
control roadside traders. The Chairman stated that the group would be able to
express concerns of the electorate regarding highway safety etc to the appropriate
authorities and set up policies and procedures.
The Public Protection Manager stated that any policies would be limited to the issues
over which the Council had control.
Licensing and Appeals Committee
2
10 November 2014
Charitable collections
Mrs P Grove-Jones stated that people in her area were inundated with requests for
donations. People were being coerced into giving to these charities and there was
no information as to what happened to the monies raised. She considered that this
matter needed investigation, together with shops which set up claiming that they
donated to charities. She considered that there was a grey area of legality and upset
was being caused by people who said they were collecting but showed no written
evidence.
Mr R Reynolds expressed concern that people were being persuaded to sign up to
standing orders which they were unable to revoke.
Caravan sites
The Chairman asked if there was any risk to the Council during the 18 months to two
year timescale of the proposed caravan site licensing project, as the Council was
already responsible for licensing.
The Public Protection Manager stated that caravan sites were already licenced. The
project would bring together information which had not been collated onto the
Environmental Health database so it was easily accessible, and bring the information
up to date. Once this work had been completed, checks would be carried out to
ensure that sites were complying with their licences.
The Chairman referred to an issue which had been raised at a previous meeting by
Miss B Palmer regarding the setting of standards for Council-owned sites.
The Public Protection Manager stated that Council-owned sites could not be licenced
but it was hoped that model conditions would be applied. This was a matter for
Property Services to deal with.
The Chairman suggested that a tour of caravan sites be carried out. The Public
Protection Manager stated that the inspection process was not part of this project
and would take place later.
Mr R Reynolds declared that he was a semi-retired electrical contractor. He referred
to legislation governing caravan sites and the supply of electricity, which required
stringent annual tests to be carried out. There were some sites where this did not
happen. He asked who would be responsible if there was a fatal accident. If a site
were licenced the Council should be able to view the paperwork.
The Legal Advisor stated that the Council should ensure that it complied with
legislation with regard to sites in its ownership. Owners of privately-owned sites were
responsible for their own sites and if the Council was aware of non-compliance it
could take action. Conditions were applied to caravan site licences and the Council
could check at any time if those conditions were complied with.
The Public Protection Manager stated that health and safety was within the remit of
the Public Protection Team.
In response to a question by the Chairman, the Public Protection Manager stated that
she would check whether or not Parish Councils had been approached with regard to
caravan sites in their parish, as requested at a previous meeting.
Licensing and Appeals Committee
3
10 November 2014
The Chairman requested that communications should go out to site owners to remind
them of their responsibilities.
RESOLVED
1.
That the Work Programme be agreed.
2.
That the following Task and Finish Groups be set up and that the Public
Protection Manager seek volunteers to fill the vacancies:
Alternative trading: Mrs A Green (2 vacancies)
Charitable collections: Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr R Reynolds (1 vacancy)
Hackney Carriage & Private Hire: existing membership to continue (Mrs
A Claussen-Reynolds, Mr P High, Mr R Price)
16
UPDATE ON GENERAL LICENSING ISSUES
The Public Protection Manager reported that a Senior Public Protection Officer
(James Windsor) had been appointed.
The Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 had come into force
on 6 August. The Regulations increased the burden on Local Authorities with regard
to recording and publishing decisions, particularly with regard to granting permissions
and licences and those affecting the rights of individuals. A County-wide group had
been set up to consider this matter.
The Mandatory Licensing Conditions Order 2014 had introduced new mandatory
conditions relating to the irresponsible promotion of alcohol, provision of free tap
water to customers and serving of small measure of beer, wine and spirits.
The Licensing Act 2003 (Permitted Temporary Activities) (Notices) (Amendment)
Regulations 2014 will introduce a new form from October onwards requiring ‘relevant
activity’ (nudity, sex acts, pole and lap dancing) to be specified.
The Public Protection Manager reported that a training event for Members would be
held at the Kings Lynn & West Norfolk Council Offices in June or July 2015. Further
details would be provided in due course.
Mrs P Grove-Jones asked if the staffing levels in the Public Protection Team was
sufficient. The Public Protection Manager explained the current structure and stated
that by the end of the year she would have a better idea as to whether it was suitable.
There was an arrangement with the Commercial Team which had health and safety
expertise to assist where necessary. Mrs Grove-Jones requested that the Committee
be kept informed as to whether the team was coping.
The meeting closed at 11.15 am.
___________________
Chairman
Licensing and Appeals Committee
4
10 November 2014
LICENSING AND APPEALS SUB-COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Licensing Sub-Committee held on 27 August 2014
in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00 am.
Sub-Committee
Mrs H Cox (Chairman)
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr R Reynolds
Officers in Attendance:
Legal Advisor, Public Protection Manager, Licensing
Enforcement Officer and Regulatory Officer
Technical Administrator (observing) for Minute 6
1
APOLOGIES
There were no apologies for absence.
2
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received.
3
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None received.
4
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
RESOLVED
That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press
and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of
business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of
exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 12A
(as amended) to the Act.
5
WK/140008092 – Application for a Licence to Drive Hackney Carriage or
Private Hire Vehicles in North Norfolk
Present: Applicant & Supporter
The Chairman introduced the Members of the Sub-Committee and Officers.
The Legal Advisor explained the procedure for the hearing. She explained
that, after hearing the representations on this matter, the Sub-Committee
would retire to make its decision. She would accompany the Sub-Committee
to provide legal advice and assistance in formulating its reasons but would not
take part in making the decision. The Sub-Committee needed to be satisfied
that the Applicant was a fit and proper person to drive a hackney carriage or
private hire vehicle in North Norfolk.
The Public Protection Manager explained that the applicant had applied for a
licence to drive hackney carriage or private hire vehicles in North Norfolk.
Relevant documentation had been supplied with the application and a second
reference had been circulated to the Sub-Committee. There were issues on
the applicant’s CRB disclosure which required further consideration. She
explained the options for determining this licence; grant without conditions,
Licensing & Appeals Committee
5
10 November 2014
grant with conditions or refuse. She referred to the offences volunteered by
the applicant on his application form and summarised on the documentary
evidence sheet appended to the report.
There being no questions to the Public Protection Manager, the Chairman
invited the applicant to put forward his case.
The applicant explained the circumstances of his conviction for failing to send
a child to school, for which, in law, he was still liable although the child was
not living with him at the time. The Chairman stated that the offence of
battery was more of a concern as the Sub-Committee had to consider the
safety of the public. The applicant explained that he had been pushed in a
bar and pushed the person back, which was caught on CCTV, the Police had
been called and he had been cautioned. He was currently licenced by
Norfolk County Council to drive a school coach despite the caution.
In response to a question by the Chairman, the Legal Advisor explained that
common assault and battery were the lowest forms of assault under the
Criminal Justice Act.
There being no further questions, the Chairman invited the applicant to make
his closing statement.
The applicant stated that he had been a coach driver for 12 years with no
problems. He held HGV1, HGV2 and a full PSV licence. He had been driving
16 seater coaches for his current employer, which for which he was covered
by his PSV licence, but the company no longer operated these vehicles and
he now required a taxi licence to continue his job.
The Sub-Committee retired at 10.16 am and returned at 10.23 am.
RESOLVED
That the licence be granted.
6
WK/140010513 – Complaints received regarding a Licence to Drive
Hackney Carriage or Private Hire Vehicles in North Norfolk
Present:
For the Defendant: Defendant, supporter (speaking for the Defendant) & two
character witnesses.
Against the Defendant: The Defendant’s former employer and one other
person.
The following additional documents were circulated to the Sub-Committee
and the defendant:
Print-outs from the Council’s system of four complaints
2 character references from the defendant’s customers
Police Information Notice
Additional letter from the Defendant
One further letter of support
Guidelines for Medical Practitioners with regard to Group 2 medicals, with
sections relating to epilepsy and seizures marked for reference.
Licensing & Appeals Committee
6
10 November 2014
The Chairman introduced the Members of the Sub-Committee and Officers.
The Legal Advisor explained the procedure for the hearing. She explained
that, after hearing the representations on this matter, and legal advice if
requested, the Sub-Committee would retire to make its decision. She would
accompany the Sub-Committee to assist with the law and formulation of facts
and reasons but would not take part in making the decision.
The meeting was adjourned for a short period to allow the defendant and his
supporter the opportunity to read the additional documents which had been
supplied to them.
The Defendant asked if he could keep the copies of the complaint print-outs.
The Public Protection Manager stated that he could not do so and they had to
be handed back to the Council.
The Licensing Enforcement Officer presented the report relating to complaints
received regarding a taxi driver’s licence. The Council had requested a new
Group 2 Medical Report to be completed, which indicated that the applicant’s
pre-existing medical conditions did not comply with Group 2 standards.
Further to the issuing of the Officer’s report, further complaints had been
received that the Defendant had been verbally abusive to one of the
complainants at her home.
The Supporter stated that the Defendant had not been diagnosed with
epilepsy and queried the relevance of the Group 2 medical.
The Licensing Enforcement Officer referred to page 24 of the Guidance for
Medical Practitioners with regard to isolated seizures.
The Defendant asked why he had been issued with a licence previously given
his previous medical.
The Licensing Enforcement Officer explained that Authority now had full
information which had not been available in January when the SubCommittee considered the application.
The Defendant stated that D4 requirements referred to vehicles with 9 seats
and above.
The Licensing Enforcement Officer explained that best practice stated that
public drivers, including taxi drivers, should undertake a Group 2 medical.
This had been adopted at the discretion of the Council as a requirement of its
adopted policies and procedures.
At this point the Defendant’s former employer and another person entered the
room. The Defendant confirmed that he had requested that they attend and
that the complainants had not come.
The Public Protection Manager confirmed that the Defendant had requested
that the complainants attend but that one of the complainants was unavailable
because of a family commitment and another had not responded.
The Supporter put forward the Defendant’s case. She stated that the both
she and the Defendant had been shocked by the complaints by his former
Licensing & Appeals Committee
7
10 November 2014
employer, which did not relate to other complaints. She explained in detail
issues relating to obtaining of timesheets from the Defendant’s former
employer, and supplied copies of those timesheets for the Sub-Committee’s
perusal. In respect of the individual complaints, she indicated discrepancies
in the dates and times which had been stated by the complainants and
corresponding journeys listed in the timesheets.
She referred to
inconsistencies in statements by one of the complainants which she
considered contained nothing factual and had been made up.
The Licensing Enforcement Officer stated that if a complaint was received,
the Council had a duty to investigate it.
The Chairman stated that Officers did not have delegated responsibility to
take on board serious issues such as this and the Sub-Committee would
consider discrepancies.
The Defendant and his supporter expressed concerns that insufficient
investigation had taken place and that witnesses should have been present at
the hearing.
The Supporter stated that it appeared the complaints had been submitted
around the time when the Defendant’s employer had decided to sack him,
when he had found out that the Defendant wished to start his own business
and had made enquiries of the Licensing Authority with regard to obtaining an
operator’s licence. She stated that one of the complainants was a former
girlfriend of the former employer. She referred to another incident where a
taxi operator, whom she did not wish to name, had told her he had contacted
the Council looking for drivers and had been warned to stay away from the
Defendant.
The Chairman stated that the Sub-Committee had not received the latter
complaint but was listening to all the evidence and would base its decision on
it.
The Chairman invited the Defendant’s former employer to speak.
The Defendant’s former employer confirmed that he had had a very brief
relationship many years ago with one of the complainants and he had known
her for a long time. She had complained to him about the Defendant prior to
writing the letters. He had questioned the Defendant about it and stated that
the defendant had not dealt with it in the right way. He had asked the
complainant to put her complaint in writing. He referred to journeys listed on
the timesheets in the Defendant’s handwriting, when the Defendant had
driven the complainant. He considered that when the complaints were written
was irrelevant. He had been told by another person, whom he did not wish to
name, that they did not want to travel with the Defendant but had not been
given a reason.
Referring to the other complainant, the Defendant’s former employer referred
to a journey which the Defendant had undertaken on 6 June. The Supporter
referred to her copy of the timesheet which stated that this journey had been
to a different destination from that claimed.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones stated that she had been on the panel which
had previously considered the Defendant’s application for a licence. The
Panel had some reservations but had given the benefit of the doubt. She
Licensing & Appeals Committee
8
10 November 2014
asked why the Defendant had not sought a medical certificate from his own
doctor when he applied for the licence.
The Defendant explained that his doctor would not undertake the medical as
he did not understand it. He reiterated his view that D4 regulations should not
apply.
The Licensing Enforcement Officer explained that licensing authorities had
discretion as to whether they required a Group 2 medical for taxi drivers, and
the Council had adopted it as part of its policy, a copy of which was supplied
to all drivers. She explained that a further Group 2 medical had been
requested, at the Council’s expense, following a review of the application in
response to the complaints which had been received.
Councillor R Reynolds asked the Defendant what the side effects of his
medication were. The Defendant stated that he did not know as he had
experienced no side effects.
At the request of the Defendant, the character witnesses addressed the SubCommittee. One stated that he was partially sighted and the Defendant was
the only driver he felt safe with and the only one who assisted him from the
car to his house. The other witness stated that the Defendant put himself out,
was a good driver, had a good sense of humour, was not rude and did not
overcharge.
There being no further questions or statements, at the request of the
Chairman, the Legal Advisor gave advice as to the consideration of the
evidence by the Sub-Committee.
The Legal Advisor stated that this was a review and the Sub-Committee had
to consider whether or not the Defendant was a fit and proper person to drive
taxis in North Norfolk. The Sub-Committee had the following options:
• Take no action
• Suspend the licence
• Revoke the licence, either with a 14-day period to appeal, or with
immediate effect in the interests of public safety.
In considering whether the Defendant was a fit and proper person, one of the
issues to consider was whether the Sub-Committee members would be
happy to allow a member of their family to get into the taxi. The SubCommittee had to consider the reports and evidence which all parties had
had an opportunity to view. There were three areas to consider:
•
•
•
Previous convictions. Little had been said with regard to this issue at
this meeting.
Whether the Defendant was medically fit to drive a taxi.
Whether the Defendant was fit and proper in relation to the issues
raised in the complaints.
The Legal Advisor referred to the DVLA Guidance for Medical Practitioners.
In the guidance issued in May 2014, medical practitioners were advised to
treat taxi drivers similarly to bus and lorry drivers, in that they should pass a
Group 2 medical which was more onerous than Group 1. She referred
particularly to the guidance with regard to epilepsy and seizure and the
periods of time an applicant should be free from seizures and medication.
Licensing & Appeals Committee
9
10 November 2014
The Legal Advisor stated that the complaints had raised issues as to the
Defendant’s medical fitness to drive.
The Legal Advisor stated that the Defendant, through his supporter, had
referred to discrepancies. She advised that the complainants had not stated
that incidents happened on a certain day, but that they were uncertain of the
date. However, they had stated their view of the Defendant’s driving.
The Legal Advisor stated that the Sub-Committee must take all of these
issues into account, including the references which had been received.
The Sub-Committee retired at 12.22 pm and returned at 1.34 pm.
The Chairman stated that the Sub-Committee had taken the view that there
was a dispute between the taxi operator and the Defendant and made no
findings as to the contents of the complaints. However, the Sub-Committee
found that the Defendant had not satisfactorily passed the Group 2 medical
standards as required.
RESOLVED
That the licence be revoked with immediate effect in the interests of
public safety.
The meeting closed at 1.40 pm
__________________________
Chairman
Licensing & Appeals Committee
10
10 November 2014
Agenda Item No_____6______
LICENSING – CHANGES TO DELEGATED AUTHORITY
Summary:
In light of the additional information provided to the
Committee that further consideration be given to altering
the current policy and practice regarding delegation of
authority.
To consider changes to the current delegation of
authority for revocation of a hackney carriage/private
hire driver’s licences in cases where there are serious
allegations / incidents
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
To allow Officers to revoke a driver’s licence when
matters of a serious nature arise where immediate
action is needed to safeguard the public
1. That the Head of Environmental Health be
authorised to immediately revoke a hackney
carriage and/or private hire vehicle driver’s
licence where it is considered to be urgently
necessary to safeguard the public.
and/or
2. That the Head of Environmental Health, in
consultation with the Chair (or Vice Chair) of
Licensing and Appeals Committee, be
authorised to immediately revoke a hackney
carriage and/or private hire vehicle driver’s
licence where it is considered to be urgently
necessary to safeguard the public.
3. That any decision made under the above
authorisation be reported to the next meeting of
the Licensing and Appeals Committee.
4. That where a hackney carriage and/or private
hire vehicle driver’s licence is revoked, but after
investigation a Licensing Sub-Committee does
not uphold the revocation, the licence be reissued and the pre-grant checks be accepted up
to the point at which they would have required
renewing had the licence not been revoked.
or
5. Leave current policy in place which could result
in legal challenge and failure to act quickly to
protect the public
Licensing & Appeals Committee
11
10 November 2014
Cabinet Member(s)
Councillor John Lee –
Portfolio Holder
Councillor Richard Price Chairman of the Licensing
Committee
Ward(s) affected - All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Gemma Faircloth 01263 516139 gemma.faircloth@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1
This report gives details of the decision of the High Court in the case of R
(Singh) v Cardiff City Council [2012]. The case has implications for the
process the Council follows when revoking a Hackney Carriage or Private
Hire Driver’s licence.
1.2
Under the Council’s current Officer Delegation Scheme only the Licensing
and Appeals Committee or Licensing Sub-Committee can revoke a driver’s
licence. It is suggested that Licensing and Appeals Committee authorises an
officer, in exceptional circumstances, to revoke a Hackney Carriage or Private
Hire driver’s licence outside of Committee to comply with the decision of the
High Court in R (Singh) v Cardiff City Council [2012] and to maintain a high
standard of public protection.
1.3
Further to the Report provided to the Licensing and Appeals Committee on
the 21 July 2014 the Council was advised by the Section 151 Officer that it
was not possible to call a Committee meeting within twenty-four hours as the
statutory notification period such a meeting was five working days.
Consideration is needed to ensure that where a matter of public safety is
identified it can be dealt with immediately.
2.
Background
2.1
Section 61 (1) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act
1976 provides that a district council may suspend, revoke or refuse to renew
a hackney carriage or private hire driver’s licence and that a licence holder
has 21 days to appeal to the Magistrates’ Court against such a decision.
During these 21 days the licence holder can continue to drive a hackney
carriage or private hire vehicle.
2.2
Section 61 (2) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act
1976 provides that a district council may, in the interests of public safety,
require the suspension or revocation of the licence to have immediate effect.
In relation to this provision of the Act, the Head of Environmental Health and
Public Protection Manager have been granted delegated authority to
immediately suspend a driver’s licence pending the driver being brought
before a Sub Committee.
2.3
This delegation to immediately suspend a driver’s licence has to date only
been exercised by an officer on rare occasions where a serious allegation has
been made against a driver and, if the allegation was true, public safety could
Licensing & Appeals Committee
12
10 November 2014
be compromised if the driver was permitted to continue to drive a licensed
vehicle for hire and reward.
2.4
Currently, when a licence is suspended the suspension normally remains in
place until the conclusion of an investigation at which point the licence holder
appears before the Licensing Sub Committee for it to consider if they are fit
and proper to continue to hold a licence.
2.5
In the case of Singh, the High Court has held that it is unlawful for Councils to
suspend a licence pending the result of an investigation and then
subsequently revoke the licence. Councils can only legally suspend or revoke
a licence, not both. A copy of a bulletin issued by licensing lawyer James
Button of James Button & Co Solicitors on the decision in the Singh case is
attached as Appendix A to this report.
2.6
It is suggested that in the light of this judgement, the Licensing and Appeals
Committee authorises the Head of Environmental Health, after consulting with
the Chair (or Vice Chair) of Licensing and Appeals Committee, to
immediately revoke a hackney carriage and/or private hire vehicle
driver’s licence where it is considered to be urgently necessary in the
public interest. Any person aggrieved by such a decision would continue to
have a right of appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days but could not
continue to drive a licensed vehicle during this time or pending the appeal.
2.7
In circumstances where an allegation is so serious that the licence is
revoked, it is suggested that where an investigation does not reveal
sufficient evidence to justify this decision, the licence(s) is re-issued and the
pre-grant enquiries (i.e. Disclosure and Barring Service, knowledge test,
medical) that existed in relation to the previous licence, up to the point at
which they would have required renewing had the licence not been revoked,
be accepted.
2.8
Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing is a function of the District
Council. The statutory powers are contained within the Town Police Clauses
Act 1847 and Part II of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act
1976.
3.
Conclusions
3.1
The ruling of the High Court in the case of R (Singh) v Cardiff City Council
has a serious impact on the way in which the Council carries out its licensing
function.
3.2
It is important that due regard is given to the decisions of the higher courts
and appropriate steps taken to bring the Council’s procedures in line with
such decisions to maintain public safety and reduce the risk of legal challenge
to the Council’s procedures and decisions.
3.3
To allow Officers to revoke a driver’s licence when matters of a serious nature
arise where immediate action is needed to safeguard the public.
Licensing & Appeals Committee
13
10 November 2014
4.
Implications and Risks
4.1
Failure to adapt practices arising from court decisions may lead to an
increased risk of litigation and costs against the Council. Regular reviews of
processes are required to ensure that they are fit for purpose. To mitigate
risk the Council should revise licensing policies to ensure they are fit for
purpose.
5.
Financial Implications and Risks
5.1
There are no financial implications arising from this report
6.
Sustainability
6.1
Not Applicable to this report
7.
Equality and Diversity
7.1
There are no equality and diversity implications associated with this report.
8.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
8.1
There are no implications associated with this report.
Licensing & Appeals Committee
14
10 November 2014
APPENDIX A
Licensing & Appeals Committee
15
10 November 2014
Licensing & Appeals Committee
16
10 November 2014
Licensing & Appeals Committee
17
10 November 2014