To consider
an application by Mr B
(separate
copy for sub-committee members only)
Minutes:
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. He highlighted that the
decision would be made in accordance with Gwynedd Council's licensing
policy. It was noted that the purpose of
the policy was to set guidelines for the criteria when considering the
applicant's application with the aim of protecting the public by ensuring that:
•
The person is a fit and
proper person
•
The person does not pose a
threat to the public
•
The public are safeguarded
from dishonest persons
•
Children and young people
are protected
•
Vulnerable persons are
protected
•
The public have confidence
in their use of licensed vehicles.
The applicant and his prospective employer were invited to expand on the
application and offer an explanation on the offences. As the applicant did not
now have the right to benefits nor pension credit, he was in need of
employment. The prospective employer confirmed that he had a 16-hour post for
the applicant and that he trusted him to complete the work, having known him
for over 50 years.
The applicant and his representative withdrew from the room while the
Sub-committee members discussed the application.
RESOLVED that the applicant
was a fit and proper person to be issued with a hackney vehicle/private hire
driver's licence from Gwynedd Council.
In reaching their decision, the Sub-committee considered the following:
·
The requirements of the
'Gwynedd Council Licensing Policy for Hackney Carriages and Private Hire
Vehicles'
·
the applicant's application
form
·
verbal observations
presented by the applicant during the hearing
·
the comments of his
prospective employer
·
the Licensing Department's
report along with the DBS statement
Specific consideration was given to the following matters.
The applicant received
a conviction from North West Wales Magistrates' Court (November 2017) for a
charge of fraud as he had not reported a change in circumstances which would
have affected his right to benefits payments (February 2014). The offence was
contrary to section 111A(1A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992,
and the applicant was fined £180.00 and ordered to pay costs of £85.00 and a
victim's surcharge of £30.00. It was highlighted that he had no further
convictions nor cautions
Paragraph 2.2 of the Council's Policy was considered, in which it was
stated that a person with a conviction for a serious offence need not be
automatically barred from obtaining a licence, but would normally be expected
to remain free of conviction for an appropriate period as stated in the Policy,
and to show evidence that he/she was a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The applicant had a responsibility to show
that he/she was a fit and proper person.
Paragraph 4.5 of
the Council policy was considered which stated that the Rehabilitation of
Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) Order 2002 allowed the Sub-committee
to take into account all convictions recorded against an applicant, whether
spent or otherwise under the 1974 Act.
Paragraph 8.0 of the
Policy, which addressed fraudulent offences, was considered. Paragraph 8.2
noted that an application would normally be refused or an existing licence
suspended or revoked, if there was a conviction against the applicant/licence
holder for a listed offence, and that the conviction was received less than
three years prior to the date of application. It was noted that the list of
offences included, amongst others, benefit fraud.
Main observations
arising from the discussion:
·
The applicant had only one conviction
·
The benefit fraud offence fell low on
the spectrum of seriousness (due to the nature and sum of the penalty). The
applicant confirmed his situation regarding failure to declare that his wife
received payment from an elderly neighbour for assistance around the house.
There was no evidence that the applicant had substantially gained financially as
a result of committing the offence. The relatively low sentence received for
the conviction (a fine, as opposed to imprisonment) confirmed the
Sub-committee's opinion that the offence was not amongst the most serious cases
of fraud.
·
That there was a high level of trust
toward the applicant within the community
·
That his prospective employer was eager
for him to join his company to work as a taxi driver.
Having
considered all matters, the Sub-committee was of the opinion that deviation
from the recommendation within the Policy could be justified in this case.
Under the circumstances, the Sub-committee was satisfied that the applicant was
a fit and proper person to hold a hackney vehicle/private hire driver's
licence.
The Solicitor reported that the decision would be confirmed formally by a
letter sent to the applicant and that the Licensing Unit would be in contact to
confirm the licence documentation.