Agenda item

Mr David Beale

The Licensing Team Leader, Louis Krog, introduced the report regarding a review of Mr David Beale’s Private Hire Driver’s Licence PHD309.  On 13 March 2017 a complaint was made to the council relating to Mr Beale, who had been witnessed colliding with a stationary vehicle in Bramery Business Park car park, not stopping and driving off.  Further investigation by Officers revealed that at the time of the collision, Mr Beale’s then licensed vehicle did not have a valid MOT.  It had expired on 17 February 2017.  Further details and interview notes were contained in the background papers.

The Officer informed the committee that they needed to decide whether they felt Mr Beale was a fit and proper person to hold such a licence; to continue his licence but with a written warning; to revoke the licence and if revoked whether to do so with immediate effect in the interest of public safety.

In reply to questions from members, the Officer informed the committee that a taxi driver without a valid MOT would have their licence suspended immediately or in the case of damage to the vehicle, if the damage was not serious, 28 days rectification notice would be served on the proprietor. He confirmed that without a valid MOT, insurance was also invalidated and that the renewal of a MOT was down to the owner of the car and not for the council to remind the driver.  However, as a matter of courtesy the council did send renewal reminders and one was sent to Mr Beale on 2 February 2017.  The Officer also clarified that it was a policy requirement for drivers to report an accident to the council.

There being no further questions to the Officer, the Chair invited Mr Beale and his representative Mr Burt from Taxi Law Birmingham, to address the committee.  Mr Burt informed members that his client had been a taxi driver for 14 years, during which time he had not had any issues with his documentation being in order.  He stated that Mr Beale had been before the Licensing Committee once before concerning an altercation about an MOT test carried out at the Depot and that he had appealed and his licence had been reinstated.  Mr Burt continued that Mr Beale had purchased the vehicle from another taxi driver and had assumed that the MOT renewal date was the same as the licence renewal date, that being 26 March and felt that the seller should have notified Mr Beale that the two did not go hand in hand.   Mr Burt said that his client was aware that the onus was on him to renew his MOT and that he should have checked, but that he had some family problems at this time and this had been overlooked.  He further advised that once Mr Beale had been alerted, as a result of the incident, that his MOT was invalid, Mr Beale made arrangements immediately to have the MOT carried out and to resolve the incident in the business car park.  He reiterated that Mr Beale had been a driver for many years and was aware of the consequences of not having his papers in order and Mr Burt asked the committee not to revoke the licence but to consider giving Mr Beale a warning or a fine.

In reply to questions from members, Mr Beale confirmed that he only knew his MOT had expired as a result of the complaint to the council on 13 March and that as soon as he was aware of this he took the vehicle for its test at Ubico (the council testing station) on 15 March, but that it failed.  He then parked the car up until the MOT had been passed.  He confirmed that he had been driving paying passengers between the period 17 February to 13 March as he did not know his MOT had expired.

The Officer informed the committee that the vehicle was no longer licensed with the council and that it had failed its MOT on a number of issues, two of which were considered as dangerous.  He continued that the car had been presented to Station Garage on 16 May for a re-test, when it had also failed, finally passing on 18 May.  The Officer also confirmed that Mr Beale was a private hire driver with Cheltenham Borough Council but that he did not have a vehicle licence with the Council.

In reply to questions from members, Mr Beale confirmed that he had been carrying passengers for the period when his vehicle did not have a valid MOT.

Members were surprised and concerned that being a taxi driver of 14 years and buying a car from a taxi driver friend of 20 years that Mr Beale had not checked the vehicle and was not aware of the deficiencies in the car.  Mr Beale informed members that he regularly carried out routine checks on the vehicle and that he knew his responsibilities and the requirements expected of him.  He also confirmed that he was now driving this vehicle privately and had a taxi licence for this car with Tewkesbury Borough Council.

In summing up, Mr Burt stated that his client should have been aware that his MOT had expired, but that he thought the licence renewal and MOT renewal went hand in hand and that he would not have driven the vehicle if he had known the MOT was invalid.  His client was now driving this vehicle as a taxi with another borough and asked the committee to consider Mr Beale retaining his licence and driving in the Cheltenham Borough as well.

In the ensuing debate members expressed their concern about Mr Beale’s representations when he had stated on several occasions that he checked the vehicle every day, as, if this was the case, they felt he would have seen the faults reported in the MOT, in particular the bonnet catch failure which could have been very dangerous and the fuel leakage which was a hazard to cyclists. They felt Mr Beale was aware that his car was not road worthy and this impacted on the safety of the Cheltenham public. Members were not convinced that the car had been purchased from a taxi driver friend without any explanation of the condition of the car or checking for faults which could not all have happened within the time since the purchase. 

Members stated that the Committee was not there to punish taxi drivers but to protect the Cheltenham public and they were especially worried that the vehicle had been driven without a valid MOT, which invalidated the insurance and put passengers at risk.

Members also did not think that the actions of Mr Beale were fit and proper in relation to the accident, since Mr Beale did neither stop and leave a contact number nor report the incident to the council within 72 hours.

There being no further discussion, the Chair moved to vote on:

1.4.1 – the licence be continued with no further action; 0 for, 7 against

1.4.2 – the licence be continued with a written warning; 1 for, 6 against

1.4.3 – the licence be revoked; 6 for, 1 against

1.4.4 – the licence be revoked with immediate effect; 6 for, 0 against, 1 abstention

RESOLVED THAT Mr David Beale’s private hire driver’s licence be revoked as the Committee considered him to no longer be a fit and proper person to hold such a licence and that the licence be revoked with immediate effect in the interest of public safety.

The Legal Officer informed Mr Beale that he was no longer able to drive as a private hire driver with immediate effect and that he had the right of appeal to the local magistrates court to be made within 21 days of the date of the decision letter.