Agenda item

Mr Akekur Babu Rahman

The Licensing Officer introduced the report which had been circulated to Members. He advised that an application had been received from Mr Akekur Rahman for a renewal of his Private Hire driver’s licence. Mr Rahman had a number of convictions and two new endorsements which meant that he now had 9 points on his DVLA driver’s licence. When interviewed by officers on 8 July 2014 he was asked why he had not informed the authority of any points he had received for the offences. Members were asked to consider whether Mr Akekur Babu Rahman was a fit and proper person to hold a private hire driver’s licence.

In response to a point of clarification the Licensing Officer explained that Mr Akekur Babu Rahman had 3 points on his licence in addition to those listed on the background papers. These points related to offences in 2011 which the Committee dealt with in 2012. The Licensing Officer undertook to include all previous offences and points on the licence on the background papers in the future.

In response to other questions the following responses were given:

• With reference to the Committee’s requirement from its hearing in June 2012 Mr Akekur Babu Rahman had successfully completed the road safety unit driver assessment
• It was noted that the information regarding the date of the offences within the report differed from the details of offences on the background papers. The details within the report were direct notes from the interview held with Mr Rahman
• Details of exact speeds driven over the speed limit were not available to officers. A Committee Member pointed out that if the speed was very excessive this would be reflected in the sentence
• The points Mr Rahman had received for the earliest offence shown on his licence in November 2011 will cease to have effect in a few months’ time.

When invited to address the Committee Mr Rahman explained that the first offence, SP30-exceeding statutory speed limit on a public road came as a complete surprise to him and he could not remember any details. In terms of the second offence, SP50-exceeding speed limit on a motorway he explained that due to roadworks, there were speed restrictions in operation. He had attempted to slow down when approaching the speed restriction but was still over the limit.

In response to questions from Members Mr Rahman said the following :

• He was not carrying any passengers at the time of the motorway offence as he had just dropped off customers in Stroud and was returning to Cheltenham. Mr Rahman imagined that he had been travelling at about 70 mph.
• He was very surprised to receive a letter with regard to exceeding the speed limit on a public road and apologised that this offence had occurred. He was not sure of the exact time this had happened but thought it was likely to have been in the afternoon.
• Mr Rahman had no recollection of receiving any details of the public road offence in terms of the date, time and speed of the offence but acknowledged that he should have known more. He said that this offence was a long time ago and he was a bit disorganised. All he could do was apologise.
• Taxi driving was not Mr Rahman’s sole income. He also had a part-time position in the mornings.
• Mr Rahman regretted what had happened and would ensure that this would not happen again.

Members discussed the issue. Some believed a decision should be deferred, possibly for two months, until they had received all the relevant evidence about the public highway offence in front of them. This would enable them to assess the case properly. Others believed they should focus on the information presented to them. Officers confirmed that granting a licence for two months was not a possibility; it would have to be a 12 month licence. Members were concerned that Mr Rahman had been asked on a number of occasions to provide an explanation as to the details behind the two offences but had no recollection at all of one offence and was weak on his recollection of the other and that this was not the first time he had forgotten to inform the authority of points on his licence and had already been asked once before to complete the road safety unit driver assessment.

Members were advised that they had the following recommendations to determine:

1. The application be granted with no further action taken as the committee considers Mr Rahman to be a fit and proper person to hold a private driver’s licence, or

2. The application be refused as the committee considers Mr Rahman to no longer be a fit and proper person to hold a private hire driver’s licence

Upon a vote it was

Resolved that the application be refused as the Committee considers Mr Rahman to no longer be a fit and proper person to hold a private hire driver’s licence

Voting : Unanimous