Taxi Driver Online

Well this is unusual

Came across this via Taxi Point, and there's a link below to that piece, which is slightly less technical, and more readable.

But this below is from the council minutes in the raw.


TO REVIEW A PRIVATE HIRE OPERATORS LICENCE

https://horsham.moderngov.co.uk/documen ... mittee.pdf

The Licensing Sub Committee was held to consider if a Private Hire Operator,
within the Horsham District was a fit and proper person to hold an Operator’s
Licence.

The Chairman proposed that the Committee move to an exempt session, and
this was seconded.

RESOLVED that, under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the
press and public be excluded from the meeting for the debate and consideration
of the item, on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt
information, as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, by virtue of
paragraph 3 (information relating to the financial or business affairs of any
particular person (including the authority holding that information)) and
paragraph 5 (information in respect of which a claim to legal professional
privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings) and, in all the circumstances
of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the
public interest in disclosing the information.

Between March 2024 and August 2024, a Horsham District Council licensed
Private Hire Operator, booked and sub-contracted eighty-seven journeys to a
Licensed Private Hire Driver, with another Licensing Authority.
This was contrary to the following acts:

• Deregulation Act 2015

• Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976
Sub Sections: 46; Vehicle, drivers’ and operators’ licences and 55A:
Sub-contracting by operators

The Licensing Officer presented the report, which set out details of the events
which led to the consideration of the Private Hire Operators licence. Particular
attention was drawn to Horsham District Council’s Private Hire Driver Policy and
the requirement that any private hire vehicle dispatched by a licensed private
hire operator, and any individual driving the vehicle, must be licensed by the
same Licensing Authority as the private hire operator.

The Sub Committee considered documentation and background information
provided on the licensed Private Hire Operator.

The Private Hire Operator attended the hearing, explained the events which
lead to the sub-contracting of journeys to another Licensed Private Hire
Operator (not with Horsham District Council) and answered questions.

It was acknowledged that since the review of the Operator Licence, improved
booking procedures and a greater understanding of procedures and conditions
had been put in place. Assurance was given to the panel that the business was
operating correctly and the need to protect the public and ensure public safety
was of upmost importance. All drivers used by the Private Hire Operator were
providing documentation to ensure they were licensed by Horsham District
Council.

The Chairman and members of the Sub Committee considered the statements
and responses, all evidence presented in the report and appendices, relevant
law and the Council’s private hire licensing policy and guidance.

The Chairman invited the Sub Committee to move to private session to
deliberate.

RESOLVED

Members acknowledged that public safety is paramount, and this is why there
are rules, regulations, conditions of licence, together with the council’s taxi
licensing policy which the operator should be abiding by. It is important that the
travelling public feel confident in the conduct of those licensed by Local
Authorities, be it drivers or operators.

The Sub Committee decided to:

• Suspend the licence for a period of two weeks.

Members were satisfied that the operator remains a fit and proper person and
not withstanding mistakes, there are lessons to be learned and learning
outcomes. Some improvements are required and within the period of
suspension, it will allow the learning period and incorporation of new practices
and procedures in particular in relation to the understanding and awareness
that a driver, their vehicle and operator, must have licences issued by the same
authority.

The suspension also serves as a punitive measure with the requirement to be
fully aware of the law and obligations on a taxi operator within Horsham District.

The Sub Committee decided that the two-week period of suspension was both
proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances.

Right to Appeal

There is a right to appeal this Sub Committee’s decision though an appeal to
the Magistrates’ Court and must be commenced within 21 days of notification of
the decision to a relevant party. There is a fee payable for an appeal.

A suspension can only take effect after 21 days, provided no appeal is lodged
with the Magistrates’ Court.

Some interesting wording there - they suspend him with a 'punitive measure', while a two week suspension doesn't seem very punitive

And they're not supposed to *punish* anyone anyway (which is for the criminal courts) - it's more about being 'fit and proper' (although there's a concept in licensing law that allows for some element of punishment in this way, but I can't recall offhand what it's called).

And they actually do say that the operator 'remains fit and proper'

Anyway, can't be bothered reading it all again, but I don't really understand what happened

It makes it sound like you can't sub-contract to another authority, but of course you can...

I'd guess that the answer is that the jobs were sub-contracted to a car and driver licensed to another authority, but without an operator's licence in place in that other authority. So there was no triple-lock in place as regards the car and driver licensed by the other authority?

But it all makes it sound like even if there was a triple-lock in place then it still couldn't be sub-contracted?

I'm guessing that he had a vehicle on his fleet that was licensed elsewhere, without an operator's license for the area to which he was licensed.

The operator passed him work directly, thus committing the breaches that he has admitted.

However, if I, or any other license holder, broke the law 87 times, I'm absolutely certain they would be brought before the courts.

The fact that Horsham didn't prosecute this mass lawbreaker is evidence that they care little about customer safety.

_________________
IDFIMH

To be fair, it may well have been that the operator genuinely didn't have a clue about the triple-lock, and simply thought that as long as the car and driver were licensed elsewhere then he could use it for bookings, and he just thought he was doing the same as Uber and all the other legacy providers using cross-border cars

I was kind of guessing they 'moved to private session' because councillors didn't have a clue, but didn't want to demonstrate that in public


Then this makes it sound like the operator needed two weeks out to clue up on it all

And councillors probably needed some time out to work it all out as well