To consider
an application by Mr A
(separate
copy for sub-committee members only)
Minutes:
The Sub-committee expressed disappointment that the
applicant was not present at the hearing.
It was highlighted that the Licensing Officer had
received an e-mail from the applicant confirming his intention to attend the
hearing. The Licensing Manager was asked to contact the applicant through his
mobile phone, but the applicant did not answer.
It was decided to continue with the hearing in the
applicant's absence.
The Licensing Manager presented the written report on
the application received from Mr A. for a new hackney/private hire driver’s
licence. The Sub-committee was asked to consider the application in accordance
with the DBS record, and in accordance with the guidelines on relevant criminal
offences and convictions.
RESOLVED that the
applicant was not a fit and proper person to be granted a hackney/private hire
driver’s licence and Mr A's application for a hackney/private hire driver's
licence was refused.
In reaching their
decision, the Sub-committee considered the following:
·
the requirements of the 'Gwynedd Council's Licensing Policy for Hackney
Carriages and Private Hire Vehicles'
·
the applicant's application form along with a driving course completion
certificate and two fixed penalty notices submitted by North Wales Police
6.1.17
·
the Licensing Department's report along with the DBS statement that
revealed the convictions
Specific consideration was given to the following
matters.
Following a verdict from the Magistrates' Court for
one theft offence in 2001, it was highlighted that, in accordance with
paragraph 8.2 of the Council's Policy, a period of at least three years should
have passed from the time the ban ended. As the conviction dated back 15 years,
the Sub-committee did not consider this conviction to be a reason for refusing
the application.
Following a 12 month ban for drink-driving in April
2009 (which was reduced to nine months following the completion of a course),
it was accepted, in accordance with clause 12.10 of the Council's Policy, that an application would be objected if
there was a recent conviction against the applicant that led to a ban of 12
months or more, unless a period of at least 18 months had passed since the end
of the ban. As the conviction dated back to 2010, the Sub-committee did not
consider the conviction to be a reason for refusing the application.
Following a notice from West Midlands Police relating
to an allegation that the applicant had attacked / abused or neglected a child,
causing unnecessary suffering or injury in February 2013, it was noted that the
DBS statement details were vague. As the applicant was not present to elaborate
on the background to the allegation, the Sub-committee considered this to be
'assault on a child'. According to clause 7.2 of the Council's Policy, unless there were exceptional circumstances,
an application would usually be refused if there were offences regarding
children or vulnerable adults. It was noted that there was no conditional
deadline included in clause 7.2 and, as the applicant was not present to
elaborate on the background to the conviction, it was felt that it was not
possible to consider the circumstances as exceptional. The Sub-committee was of
the opinion that the notice was relevant to this clause.
Following fixed penalty notices from North Wales
Police in relation two two offences: driving without
an MOT certificate, and driving a car without insurance in December 2016, it
was not obvious from the presented documents that fixed penalties had been paid
/ challenged. In addition, the Sub-committee was concerned that the applicant
did not comply with passenger safety issues. In accordance with clause 12.2 of
the Council's Policy > motoring convictions, both offences would be equal to
'serious traffic offences'. Under clause 12.4, it was noted that the
application would be rejected if the
applicant had committed more than one Serious Traffic Offence within the last
five years, and no further application should be considered until a period of
at least three years had passed. As the fixed penalty notices were issued
in January 2017, the Sub-committee was of the opinion that these notices were
relevant to the clause.
Disappointment was expressed in that the applicant was
not present to present observations on the background of his offences and to
respond to relevant questions. Disappointment was also expressed that the
applicant's prospective employer had not submitted a reference, and had failed
to attend the hearing.
Based on the available information to the
Sub-committee, the decision was reached that the warning received in 2012 and
both fixed penalty notices in 2017 were sufficient reasons for the
Sub-committee to adhere to the Policy and to refuse the application.
The Solicitor reported that the decision would be
confirmed formally by letter sent to the applicant and the applicant would have
the right to appeal the decision within 21 days of receiving the letter.