Taxi Driver Online

This is quite small beer, but the headline doesn't make much sense - how can you 'suspend' a licence for five years? Its currency is presumably less than that?


Councillors cancel taxi driver's licence and suspend another driver for five years

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/loc ... ive-years/

A Powys taxi driver has lost their licence to operate, and another driver has been given a five-year suspension following a hearing by councillors.

At a meeting of Powys County Council’s Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way committee on Thursday, November 23, the minutes of a Taxi Licensing sub-committee held last month were approved by councillors.

The document shows that the sub-committee, which is made up of three councillors - including Councillor Karl Lewis who chairs both the Planning meeting and the Taxi Licensing sub-committee – met on October 12 for the hearings which took place in confidential session.

The minutes show that the first licence-holder, known as JD/02/23, did not attend the licence review hearing which was held at the council’s County Hall in Llandrindod Wells.

The council’s licensing officer presented the case, with a Mr Bowen presenting Dyfed Powys Police's case on the suitability of JD/03/23’s to hold the licence.

After hearing the evidence, the committee which included Councillor Heulwen Hulme and Councillor Peter James withdrew to consider their verdict.

Upon their return, committee chairman, Councillor Karl Lewis said that the panel had decided to: “revoke the joint hackney carriage and private hire driver’s licence held by JD/02/23".

According to the minutes Councillor Lewis explained that the decision had been taken because: “The licence-holder is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence, in line with the council’s adopted suitability criteria.”

The panel then moved on to the second case which was an application for a taxi licence.

They were told that the applicant known as JD/05/23 had declared three driving offences on the application form.

Dyfed Powys Police licensing officer Mr Bowen presented a case on the applicant’s suitability “to continue” to hold a joint hackney carriage and private hire driver’s licence.

He explained that JD/05/23 had committed three speeding offences between February and September 2022 and had racked up nine penalty points on his driving licence.

JD/05/23 told the committee that “no one was in the car” when the speeding offences occurred.

The minutes show that he also explained what had happened and his personal circumstances at the time.

The triumvirate then withdrew to consider their judgement.

On their return Councillor Lewis announced that JD/05/23 would have his licence “suspended for five years".

The reason given by Councillor Lewis is that the licence-holder is: “no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence, in line with the council’s adopted suitability criteria".

Managed to find the minutes reasonably easily, and the terminology is the same there, so it's not a problem with press reporting.

I'd guess they meant that he wouldn't get another licence for at least five years, but that's not the same as a suspension, correct me if I'm wrong.

And calling it a 'suspension' also sounds a bit too much like 'fettering discretion'

There's that thing in Glasgow/Scotland that seems to crop up a lot - 'suspended for unexpired period of licence', which makes more sense (although maybe that's due to a Scottish licensing quirk). You can't really suspend to beyond the expiry date of the licence.

https://powys.moderngov.co.uk/documents ... mittee.pdf

You can’t suspend for 5 years.

A court would laugh at such a sanction if an appeal was before them.

Maybe they should have used the word ‘prohibited’ rather than ‘suspended’.

_________________
IDFIMH

in the latter case the 5 year "suspension"(ban) seems very severe as he had picked up 3, 3 point speeding offences so still had his driving license and presumably none were overly serious i.e. less than 30mph above the limit. I can understand a short suspension say for a couple of weeks to make the point that he needs to behave in future but either he really upset the councillors or they are being very draconian in their approach to licensing.

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

It appears the fella was an applicant for a first license, rather than a renewal. Which does make things a bit different.

This fella has to convince them he is 'fit and proper' rather than the council show that he isn't.

So the suspension really was a prohibition.

_________________
IDFIMH

Sussex, I did notice that the language used was a bit unclear, but it's definitely a renewal application rather than a fresh one.

I think the problem is that the word renewal isn't used, so simply using the words application and applicant makes it read like it's not a renewal. But other passages make it clear that it's an existing licence. And that seems to be why he made the point that there was no one in the car when he was speeding - what he meant was that he didn't have passengers at the time. (Of course, he's obviously the only taxi driver who drives a tad more slowly when he's got passengers on board )

It's slightly clearer in the actual minutes than in the Shropshire Star's report, but they both confusingly use 'applicant' and 'application' without 'renewal'.

So I don't think the driver was actually 'suspended' for any period at all, never mind five years - his licence simply wasn't renewed, and presumably the 'suspension' means they won't entertain another application for five years

Even more oddly, the section on the revoked driver also uses the word 'application', but maybe that's referring to the police/council's action on seeking the revocation


So, correct me if I'm wrong, but both were existing licensees. The speeder was applying to renew his licence, but was 'suspended' for five years

The other driver was part way through his licence, but police obviously wanted his licence revoked, and the council concurred, although there's zero information about why. But presumably something pretty serious