Maybe a good example of why the quasi-judicial angle is important - the aggressive driving here looks like it was not subject to any criminal stuff, FPN, warning, or whatever. Yet councillors still revoked him
That said, there was also a non-declared criminal damage thing, so it presumably wasn't the driving per se that they revoked him on. But we'll never know what would have happened if it had only been the driving stuff...
Taxi driver stripped of licence after driving complaint
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/266620 ... complaint/
Two taxi drivers have had their licences revoked following cases involving a driving offence and criminal damage.
Fareham Borough Council’s licensing panel considered the cases of two private hire drivers, referred to as Mr B and Mr K, at a hearing on October 13.
The licensing hearings are not open to the public or press.
Mr B lost his licence after being convicted of failing to provide driver details.
Mr K’s licence was revoked after he received a criminal damage caution, failed to tell the council about it, and faced a complaint about his driving.
The panel revoked Mr K’s licence after hearing he had received a caution for criminal damage on December 24, 2025, following an incident earlier that year.
Councillors heard the caution was not disclosed to the licensing authority when it was received.
Mr K said he had been experiencing difficult personal circumstances and regretted not informing the council.
The panel also considered a complaint alleging aggressive driving, including tailgating, undertaking and overtaking.
Mr K disputed some of the incidents, denied verbally abusing another driver and said he had overtaken after being subjected to brake checking.
No formal enforcement action had resulted from the complaint.
However, councillors concluded he had not demonstrated that he remained a “fit and proper person” to hold a licence.
His revocation took effect immediately after the panel ruled this was “necessary in the interests of public safety”.
Mr B had pleaded guilty to failing to provide driver details and was sentenced on August 13 this year, receiving six penalty points on his driving licence and a fine.
He told the panel the vehicle involved had been bought for his nephew but remained registered and financed in his own name.
Mr B said he was not driving at the time of the original offence and had relied on information from his nephew when responding to requests to identify the driver.
Councillors considered that he had no previous complaints recorded against him, no convictions recorded on his DBS, and had informed the licensing authority about the endorsement.
However, they said the circumstances showed a “significant failure” to meet the standards of responsibility expected of a private hire driver.
His licence will be revoked after the 21-day appeal period, unless he challenges the decision.
Both drivers have the right to appeal to the magistrates’ court within 21 days of receiving formal notice of the decisions.