Agenda and draft minutes

Licensing Appeals Sub-Committee - Friday, 11 September 2020 10.30 a.m.

Venue: Virtual meeting - Online. View directions

Contact: Victoria Wallace  03450 450 500 Email: democratic.services@scambs.gov.uk

Media

Items
No. Item

1.

Introductions / Procedure pdf icon PDF 205 KB

The Chairman of the Sub-Committee will welcome those present and introduce him/herself; the remaining members of the Sub-Committee and the officers will then introduce themselves.

 

A copy of the Sub-Committee appeals procedure is attached.

Minutes:

The Chair introduced the officers and panel members and welcomed the licensee to the hearing.

2.

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

3.

Referral to the Licensing Appeals Sub-Committee to consider the fit and proper status to continue as a Private Hire Driver

Minutes:

The Sub-Committee heard representations from the licensee and the licensing officer, based on the written report.

 

The Sub-Committee revoked the Private Hire Driver Licence.

 

Reasons:

 

In making its decision the sub-committee considered the following:

 

·         Statutory provisions: S51,61 & 77 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1976

·         Statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards issued by the Department of Transport in July 2020.

·         South Cambridgeshire District Council Private Hire and Taxi Policy

·         Report of the Licensing Officer

·         Advice from the Council’s legal adviser

·         Representations from the Licensing Officer

·         Evidence as referred to above.

 

The sub-committee made its decision for the following reasons:

·         On the balance of probability, the sub-committee determined that the licensee was being dishonest in his explanation, which is contrary to the licensing authority’s policy.

·         A witness statement was not consistent with the representations made by the licensee.

·         The failure to provide evidence from the passengers in question.

·         The panel was concerned by the significant discrepancies in the licensee’s account given to the Regulatory Enforcement Officer regarding where he had driven. The panel did not find the licensee’s account credible.

·         The panel was concerned by the nature of what the licensee had done. On the balance of probability, the panel believed this was carried out for reward.