Agenda item

Mr Gareth James

Louis Krog, Business Support and Licensing Team Leader introduced the report as circulated with the agenda.  An application had been received from Mr Gareth James for a Private Hire Driver’s Licence.

Mr James has a number of convictions, the details of which are shown in the background papers.

Mr James’ Disclosure and Barring Service showed a conviction for driving with excess alcohol in 2006 and a conviction for making a false statement representation to obtain benefit in 2010.

Louis Krog referred members to the policy considerations and stated that enough time has lapsed for the drink driving offence but the policy requirement of 4 years had not passed from the date of the conviction in 2010.

The background papers noted that Mr James had not disclosed the conviction in 2010 on his private hire driver’s licence application form; this was an oversight on his part for which he apologised.

Mr James attended the Committee and spoke in support of his application.  He stated that the first offence in 2006 was silly and irresponsible.  Mr James said he had paid the full price for this conviction; he had lost his job and his home.  After the offence he had fully rehabilitated himself and got a new job.  He reapplied for his DVLA drivers licence and got his old job back after 24 months.

Mr James explained about the offence in 2010 and said he thought he was claiming benefits fairly.  Mr James said he did not want to claim benefits at all but lost his job in 2006/7 and had to do so to save his home.  He started working 12 hours a week in a part time job and thought he had been claiming benefits correctly.  Mr James stated that he was unsure of how the benefit system worked and had not claimed any benefit prior to or after the offence.

Members asked the following questions:

• When asked, Mr James stated that he was working on a temporary contract at present that would end before Christmas.  He wanted the opportunity to work full time as a private hire driver.
• When asked, Mr James said that he did not disclose the benefit offence on his private hire driver application form as he did not have all of the information, dates or description about the offence.  Mr James confirmed that later he discussed this offence with a Licensing Officer.
• When asked, Mr James confirmed that he had not worked as a private hire driver before.
• When asked, Mr James said that he had a car and had worked really hard to pass his driving test.  He was willing to put everything in to getting this private hire licence.
• When asked, Mr James confirmed that Starline were happy to employ him subject to this private hire drivers licence be granted today.
• When asked, Mr James said he had held a DVLA drivers licence since 2000-2001.
• When asked, Mr James stated that he could not remember how long or how much the extra benefit had been or gone on for.
• When asked, Mr James confirmed all other tests for the application had been taken.
• When asked, Mr James said he had repaid the housing benefit that he had incorrectly claimed.
• When asked, Louis Krog said he was unable to disclose how many weeks the incorrect benefit had been paid due to data protection rules.

In summing up, Mr James said that he had moved into the area a year ago with his 2 young children.  He would like to be the bread winner and wanted the opportunity to do so.  His current temporary contract would end on 23 December so he would be out of work before Christmas.  Mr James said he wanted the opportunity to support his partner and children.

Members discussed granting the licence for 12 months with a condition that his private hire driver’s licence is reviewed at the end of the 12 months.

Upon a vote Members (5 for 5 against) and using the Chairman’s casting vote;

Did not approve the condition that Mr James private hire drivers licence be granted for 12 months with a condition that his private hire driver’s licence is reviewed at the end of the 12 months.

Members were advised they had the following recommendations;

1. Resolved that Mr James’ application be granted as Mr James is a fit and proper person.
2. Resolved that Mr James’ application be refused on the grounds that Mr James is deemed not to be a fit and proper person.

Upon a vote it was (8 for, 1 against, and 1 abstention)

RESOLVED that Mr James’ application be granted as Mr James is a fit and proper person.