Taxi Driver Online

Hello.
I would like to ask some advice please !
You know how the local councils have the power apparently to introduce legislation that they see relevant ? well what about the CRB check ?
I am NOT against been CRB checked in any way but I am currently licenced with two councils as a HC proprietor.
One council says they need the CRB renewing every 3 years and the other wants it renewing every year.
( I also have a CRB for contract work and an additional CRB for to enable me to accept work from a well known dispatch company.)
They are all done through the same place !

Do you think it is at all possible to object or maybe oppose the council that requires the once a year CRB check ?
And on a level of percentage 1 to 100 how successful do you think I would be ?
To be honest I do not have a car plated with the council that requires the "once a year" CRB check...but I would still prefer to retain the licence.
It is up for renewal in the very near future, what do you reckon live with the rules and pay for it or try to change the once a year CRB check rule ?

I mean they state.
I must report any offence where licence holders are prosecuted to them within a set time period, so this would overcome the yearly renewal of the CRB would it not ?

What do you reckon ? Pay or protest ?

Steve

_________________
The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do.

See the other thread.

_________________
IDFIMH

Thanks for the reply mate !
I will have a bit twist on to them and see it I can gain anything by it.
As section 44 states in your quote above


Well at least it will be a starting point !

Regards Steve

_________________
The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do.

I have contacted the council that requires an annual CRB check this morning.
It has been said to me like this ( I quote )
If you have a problem with our policy regarding an annual CRB check there is a very simple solution. Do not re apply and your licence will not be renewed.
It is our policy that we have written into legislation for this council.

Well I suppose he told me as direct as he could !

I went on to explain that drivers are obliged to report all new convictions and cautions to the licensing authority, so I thought an annual CRB was a little overpowering and nothing more than a un-necessary expense.

He once again told me he would cut the conversation short and told me the bottom line.
If you disagree with our annual CRB check do not re apply and your licence will not be renewed.

I was told that they would accept a CRB from another licensing council provided the CRB is no older than 12 weeks.

So that seems to be about as much as I can do at this time.

_________________
The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do.

Taxis, why not get in touch with the crb and point out the above section and ask them to inform all councils of this, this in turn could reduce there work load, you never know it might work

Further to all that I've just been looking at the consultation from the DfT/DVLA about PSV drivers having CRBs.

http://www.dvla.gov.uk/media/pdf/consul ... 190907.pdf

In the consultation (which folks should reply to as it's easy to fill in, attach and send via e-mail) it gives the options available for the frequency of CRB checks, and it looks like the DfT/DVLA are pointing towards a 5-yearly gap.

_________________
IDFIMH

Taxi licensing, which includes both hackney carriage and private hire taxi licensing, is included in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA), (Exceptions) Order 1975 and is, therefore, eligible for a Standard Disclosure. To be eligible for an Enhanced Disclosure the taxi drivers would need to be regularly working in a "regulated position" as defined by section 36(1) (a-h) of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. For example, they could be eligible under section 36 (1) (c), if they regularly work in a. 'a position whose normal duties include caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of children' or, under section 36 (1) (d) if they regularly work in a 'a position whose normal duties involve unsupervised contact with children under arrangements made by a responsible person'. Therefore, depending on the nature of the work involved, the council could request either Standard or Enhanced Disclosures when considering license applications for hackney carriage or private hire taxi drivers.

If the taxi firm is employing drivers working in a "regulated position" it is also eligible to apply to register with the CRB in its own right to countersign Disclosure applications for its employees or, it could choose to use the services of an Umbrella Body for this purpose. Once again, the level of Disclosure to which they would be entitled would depend on the degree and regularity of contact that the drivers have with children. To qualify for a Standard Disclosure, the drivers would have to be working in a "regulated position" as defined by section 36 (1) of the CJCSA. To qualify for an Enhanced Disclosure, the driver must be regularly working in such a position.

Taxi drivers are currently not eligible for any level of Disclosure in respect of working with vulnerable adults, as they do not fit within the current ROA exception for this type of work.Therefore the box in SECTION Y LINE LINE 3/4 should only be crossed if the Organisation in which the applicant works ,is regulated by the COMMISSION FOR SOCIAL CARE INSPECTORATE(CSCI) or if the position applied for is INDEPENDENT MENTAL HEALTH ADVOCATE.This is the instruction from the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.

To summarise, both the council and the employer might be eligible to register with the CRB; to be entitled to countersign Disclosure applications; and to see Disclosure information in respect of taxi drivers. The level of Disclosure to which they are entitled will be determined by whether or not they are working in a "regulated position", as defined by section 36 (1) of the CJCSA 2000, and whether they do so on a regular basis. Definition below:

To qualify for a Disclosure when working with children, the individual must be working in a regulated position, as set out in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. The activities that would constitute a regulated position are described below:

1. A position whose normal duties include work in the following establishments exclusively or mainly for children: an institution which is exclusively or mainly for the detention of children, a hospital which is exclusively or mainly for the reception and treatment of children, a care home, residential care home, nursing home or private hospital which is exclusively or mainly for children, an educational institution, a children's home or voluntary home or a home provided under section 82(5) of the Children Act 1989.

2. A position whose normal duties include work on day care premises.

3. A position whose normal duties include caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of children.

4. A position whose normal duties involve unsupervised contact with children under arrangements made by a responsible

person.

5. A position whose normal duties include caring for children under the age of 16 in the course of the children's employment.

6. A position a substantial part of whose normal duties includes supervising or training children under the age of 16 in the course of the children's employment.

7. The "great and the good". A position which, by virtue of its responsibility is one for which the postholder would be expected to be positively suitable to work with children. The positions concerned are: a member of the governing

body of an educational institution, a member of a relevant local government body, a director of social services of a local authority, a chief education officer of a local education authority, a charity trustee of a children's charity, a member of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, the Children's Commissioner for Wales or deputy or a member or chief executive of the Children and family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS).

For these purposes, a person is a member of a relevant local government body if a) he/she is a member of, or of an executive of, a local authority and discharges any education functions, or social services functions of a local authority, b) he/she is a member of an executive of a local authority which discharges any such functions, c) he/she is a member of a committee of an executive of a local authority or area committee or any other committee of a local authority which discharges any such functions.

8. A position whose normal duties include supervising or managing an individual in his work in a regulated position. This relates to the immediate supervisor or manager only.

To qualify for a Disclosure when working with vulnerable adults the below criteria must be met: ENHANCED A person who regularly cares for, trains, supervises or is in sole charge of vulnerable adults of the following description is entitled to an

ENHANCED CHECK.

A vulnerable adult for the purposes of an Enhanced Check is a person aged 18 or over who receives services of a type listed in paragraph 1) below and in consequence of a condition of a type listed in paragraph 2) below, has a disability of a type listed at 3) below.

1) The services are:

a) accommodation and nursing or personal care in a care home,

b) personal care or support to live independently in his or her own home,

c) any services provided by an independent hospital, independent clinic, independent medical agency or National Health Service body,

d) social care services; or

e) any services provided in an establishment catering for a person with learning difficulties.

2) The conditions are:

a) a learning or physical disability,

b) a physical or mental illness, chronic or otherwise, including an addiction to alcohol or drugs; or

c) a reduction in physical or mental capacity.

3) The disabilities are:

a) a dependency upon others in the performance of, or a requirement for assistance in the performance of, basic physical functions,

b) severe impairment in the ability to communicate with others, or

c) impairment in a person's ability to protect him or herself from assault, abuse or neglect.

STANDARD

Any employment or other work which is concerned with the provision of care services (2) to vulnerable adults (3) and which is of such a kind to enable the holder of that employment or the person engaged in that work to have access to vulnerable adults in receipt of such services in the course of his normal duties.

2 "Care services" means i) accommodation and nursing or personal care in a care home (where "care home" has the same meaning as in the Care Standards Act 2000); ii) personal care or nursing or support for a person to live independently in his own home; iii) social care services; or iv) any services provided in an establishment catering for a person with learning difficulties.

3 "Vulnerable adult", in the context of a Standard check, means a person aged 18 or over who has a condition of the following type: I) a learning or physical disability; ii) a physical or mental illness, chronic or otherwise, including an addiction to alcohol or drugs; or iii) a reduction in physical or mental capacity.


I have listed your answers as below.



Can the council force a person who has a valid CRB check done by a Registered Body, which arrived on the very day of the application for a licence to have another CRB check fro the purpose of applying for the very same licence? The Council has the right to ask that another CRB Disclosure is applied for.The use of Portability is the decision of the Register Body ,and some organisations are bound by regulations which state that Ported Disclosures are not allowed to be considered.i.e CSCI regulated organisations as they require a new check of the Protection of Vulnerable Adult(POVA) List every time someone moves position, other organisations are bound by the PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ACT(POCA) which determines that a new check of the POCA list is made every time someone moves position.


Is not the employer of drivers who undertake school contracts and other sensitive work just as entitled to be a Registered Body as the Council, who do not employ any of these drivers? Yes the Employer may undertake the checks if the taxi driver meets the criteria detailed above.


Does the legislation regarding the Rehabilitation of Offenders which has now been excluded for taxi drivers cover employers as well as local authorities? Yes it does as long as the employers or person making the suitability decision is eligible to ask the EXEMPTED QUESTION.



In considering whether to grant a licence the Local Authority is clearly entitled to see the full record and to discount any Rehabilitation rules in exercising their discretion as to whether to grant a licence or not. Is the employer also entitled to discount the Rehabilitation Act in considering whether to employ? I am unsure exactly what you are referring to,any recipient of Disclosure Information before making a recruitment decision must abide by the Code of Practice principles and the Recruitment of Ex-Offenders policy,which should be given to all Disclosure applicants at the beginning of the Disclosure process.A measured discussion should take place with the applicant to gain background knowledge of circumstances around the offence,factor in the age of the offence ,pattern of offending,nature of offence then make a risk assessment decision.There is a shortened guideline to Rehabilitation periods on our website.

You can ask to see Disclosure Information from the individual but cannot ENFORCE that request unless you have the right to ask the EXEMPTED QUESTION.The applicant
The ability to ask the Exempted question is made possible by virtue of the Exceptions Order to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.It is the request for an applicant to reveal their full criminal history(including spent convictions) due to the nature of the position that they are applying for.(see full answer above.)

It is an offence under the Police Act part V to seek Disclosures on individuals where you are not entitled to ask the Exempted question.



I hope this is a more satisfactory response.

PS I think that Licensing officers tick box Y unlawfully is indeed correct

I note in the consultee list the GMB are listed.

Now I wonder what the GMB response is or was.

Or are certain people only concerned with fighting others and empire building, leaving them no time to deal with what really matters.

_________________
IDFIMH

I was asked to clarify the situation regarding CRB records but I'm not going to say by whom because Mr Gateshead Angel would no doubt want the person who asked, to ask him for for his permission before I embark on remedying the request which was being made?

However, I don't have to go to the extremes of contacting anyone else outside of TDO because the answer lies within these four walls, so to speak.

Under current legislation namely the 1976 act a council can ask for any up to date information to help it make a decision on whether or not a person is fit and proper, and that includes a CRB check every year. See R V Darlington BC.

If anyone is thinking along the lines of the human rights act and in particular article 8 and the law on disclosure then I'm afraid it wont offer you any relief as a licensing body has a duty to protect vulnerable people towards whom they have heavy responsibility when determining who should hold a taxi license?

Therefore if a council requires a criminal record check every year in order for it to have up to date information then I'm afraid that is perfectly legal.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

JD, Thank you very much for your reply.
I honestly appreciate it. ( Nice and clear )
I was thinking the "once a year rule" seemed a little unfair and was prepared to dispute it. I thought it would be in the best interest of all the licensed drivers within the council concerned to make sure that the correct procedure was been carried out, but now I have had a straight forward answer from JD I will take another approach and maybe put it to the council as a "Proposal for discussion and possible implementation ."
Thanks JD for clarifying the situation.

All the best, Steve

PS: You deserve a lot more but for now can I give you a gold star...lol
( Notice the space ....I am sure it will be full soon....

_________________
The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do.

From JOP 2003.

The three types of certificates issued by the crb.

Criminal Conviction Certificate (CCC)

This will be issued only to individual applicants who can then choose whether or not to show it to employers, however it is expected that most employers will ask to see a CCC post interview but prior to commencement of post. The CCC will show all criminal convictions that are not considered “spent” under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. The CCC is not job specific and can be used more than once. Details of convictions are held on Phoenix, the national criminal records systems which is hosted on the PNC. A fee of £10 is payable for a CCC.

Criminal Record Certificate (CRC)

This will be provided on application to people who have regular contact with children and vulnerable adults, as well as those working in sensitive areas and professions, for example, police officers.

A copy of the CRC will be sent to both the applicant and employer. It will contain details of both spent and unspent convictions, cautions and, for those working with children, information held on systems operated by the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment. The DoH holds information about child carers, the DfEE maintains details of people barred from or restricted in work with schools, further education and the youth service. The certificate is job specific and can therefore only be used once.

Enhanced Criminal Record Certificate (ECRC)

This will be available to those applying for positions involving regular caring for, training, supervising or being in charge of children or vulnerable adults, to applicants for certain permits such as gaming and lottery licences and to those being considered for judicial appointments.

As with the CRC and ECRC will be issued to both applicant and employer, will be used once only and will contain identical categories of information but additionally it will include “intelligence” from local police systems. The idea is to identify undesirable characters who do not have specific convictions. Under current plans the ECRC will be issued from autumn 2001 with the CRC and the CCC being launched a year later. The Home Office estimates that there will be 5–12 million applications for certificates every year.

Obviously the CRB will be expected to respond quickly to requests. To enable it to provide a satisfactory customer service the bureau is negotiating service level agreements for access to the relevant data held on Phoenix, the two government departments and the 43 local police forces in England and Wales.

Interfaces to Phoenix and the computer systems of the DoH and the DfEE are due to be in place by the autumn of 2001. However, because of the number of police forces it will not be possible to have electronic links to local police IT systems by that time. Measures are being put in place to minimize the risk of unauthorized use and disclosure of particularly sensitive information. Employers will not be able to apply to the CRB to run a check without the knowledge and consent of the person concerned.

Applications for the two highest level checks must be signed by the applicant and countersigned by an authorised person registered with the CRB and who is acting on behalf of the employer or voluntary organization. People registered with the CRB will have to comply with a code of practice, currently being agreed. The code will include rules on the secure storage of certificates and their disposal after use. It will also ensure that individuals will be excluded from employment only as a result of a conviction relevant to a particular post, for example, the fact that an applicant had a driving conviction would to be pertinent to their employment as a sports teacher, while a conviction for indecency on a child certainly would.

The CRB itself will have to comply with the Security Codes of Practice established by the Association of Chief Police Officers for all police forces and external organizations that have access to the PCN. This will include an annual audit by one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary.
____________________________

From NLJ 2007

Comment

Richard Scorer

Computers shouldn't replace common sense in child protection procedures, says Richard Scorer

Is there too much vetting going on, or too little? Fears about inadequate checking of people working with children and vulnerable adults are rarely out of the media. In 2006, the issue was sex offenders in schools. In May and June 2007, fears were voiced after a BBC survey found that 68% of health trusts in the UK do not routinely run checks on staff who began work before the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) was set up in 2002.

Other commentators, however, complain of an “over vetted” society in which innocent activities such as dressing up as an elf at a children's Christmas party are becoming impossible due to a toxic obsession about paedophilia out of all proportion to reality. Do we need more and better checking, or have we gone too far already?

Different Lists

On any objective view, it is reasonable and necessary to vet those who work extensively with children and vulnerable adults. It is also obvious that the systems currently in place for doing so are not working properly. Historically, the underlying problem has been the existence of several different lists, including the sex offenders' register, List 99 and CRB checks, all of which are compiled according to slightly different criteria.

Teachers can be cleared to work after being checked against List 99, but although people convicted of sex crimes are automatically added to List 99, in cases falling short of a prosecution—including cautions—the individual is not automatically added. Justifiable concerns about an individual may therefore only surface following a CRB check, which until recently could take months.

Health trusts, meanwhile, appear to have been deterred from the proper vetting of staff by the cost and paperwork involved, with potentially serious repercussions. In my experience as a lawyer acting for victims of abuse I have encountered several instances where the absence of CRB checks has enabled unsuitable individuals to obtain employment in the NHS.

As Sir Michael Bichard argued in 2004 in his report following the Soham murders, a single “one stop shop” list which pools together all the disparate information is one key reform necessary to make the vetting system safe and restore public confidence.

This is the purpose of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (SVGA 2006) which, from 2008, introduces a new vetting and barring system, with online “real time” checks against a single centralised list rather than the current unwieldy paper-based process. SVGA 2006 also contains other useful reforms, for example the removal of barring decisions from politicians and the creation of an independent statutory board, staffed by experts, which will determine whether or not to include someone on the barred list. The new regime will be stringently policed; employers who employ a person known to be barred, or who hasn't been properly checked, will be liable to prosecution.

Of course, some people claim this is going too far. A recent pamphlet from the Manifesto Club (see The Case Against Vetting, Manifesto Club, October 2006) argues that Britain is suffering from an “epidemic” of vetting, and that most of it is unnecessary. Is there any merit in such arguments?

Some claims about the extent of CRB checks conflict with personal experience. Last year I became a school governor and also ran a stall at my daughter's school fête; in neither instance was I required to undergo a CRB check. If anyone is being asked to produce a CRB check to perform as an elf at a Christmas party, maybe some people have lost all sense of proportion. However, this may not be happening, or at least not to the extent suggested by the media.

Inconsistency

In reality, there is probably a great deal of inconsistency in the extent of CRB checking and much confusion about who should be checked and when. There is a strong case for government guidance here so that silly and unnecessary vetting is avoided, and to ensure that necessary vetting is done.

Also, while the principle of the “one stop shop” list may be right, computerised databases shouldn't replace good judgment and common sense in child protection. Vetting shouldn't be used as a blunt instrument, without imagination or discretion. The Manifesto Club pamphlet quotes the concerns of a youth worker in Glasgow:

“CRB checks mean that a whole raft of working class people will no longer be able to work with kids—because they had fights in the past, or took drugs. The classic youth worker is the guy with the dodgy past, and can talk to kids about the mistakes he made—now he's out.”

If CRB checks were being used in such a way, it would clearly be wrong. In fact, in my own experience of how most organisations are using information garnered from CRB checks, the youth worker's fears are probably misplaced. But such comments emphasise the need for the barring system to retain a proper degree of discretion. Should a 21-year-old student teacher who has sex with his 17-year-old pupil really be barred from teaching for life?

Sense Of Balance

We need to maintain a sense of balance, and make sensible judgments informed by rational risk assessment rather than hysteria. There will always be grey areas and a need for careful judgments in some individual cases—discretion which should be exercised, as SVGA 2006 envisages, by experts in the treatment of offenders. Intelligent vetting can make an important contribution to child protection, silly decisions merely discredit the entire system.
_____________________

I shouldn't have to remind everyone that all the answers to your questions regarding licensing can be found on TDO. We shouldn't have to lead you by the hand and point you in the right direction. A great deal of time and effort has gone into supplying you with all the relevant facts regarding case law and legal comment including this subject of CRB checks. Those who have a concern about crb checks should take note of the following.
_______________________

[2006] All ER (D) 379 (Feb)

R (on the application of Darlington Borough Council) v Bishop Auckland Magistrates' Court

Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
Andrew Nicol QC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court

27 February 2006

Road traffic – Hackney carriage – Private Hire Vehicle – Licence – Application for renewal of licence – Council requiring applicants for licence to take Driving Standards Agency taxi test and provide enhanced Criminal Record Bureau check – Applicant unwilling to take test or provide check – Applicant appealing – Magistrates' court adjourning hearing to allow applicant to provide check – Whether decision to adjourn flawed – Whether mandatory order to issue – Town Police Clauses Act 1847, s 46 – Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, s 51, 57(1), 77(2).
________________-

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.