Agenda item

Mr Aditya Rai

The Senior Licensing Officer, Andy Fox, introduced the report which had been circulated to Members.  He advised that an application had been received from Mr Aditya Rai for a Hackney Carriage vehicle licence on 14 August 2014 to license a Peugeot E7 registration SC57 UJF.  Mr Rai had failed to renew his vehicle licence on time and was now making a new application, however the vehicle in question was older than the maximum permitted age limit of 5 years from date of manufacture and thus members were being asked to determine whether the application be permitted.

The Officer added that Mr Rai’s previous licence had expired on 8 August 2014 and that despite numerous reminders he had failed to renew it in time.  The Licensing and Business Support Team leader having considered the facts, notified Mr Rai in writing on 8 August that he had decided not to renew his expired licence.  A copy of this letter was attached at Appendix A.

The Officer reminded members that this application must be determined on its merits as a new licence application and advised that the vehicle had passed all relevant assessments and was a disabled access vehicle.

In response to questions from members the Officer confirmed that :

• It was the same vehicle seeking a new licence
• The vehicle was 7 years old and that as it was a disabled access vehicle, it could continue working for 14 years.
• The vehicle had been purpose built as a disabled access taxi and specifically modified with sliding doors and built in ramps.
• Mr Rai’s licence expired on 8 August and that the letter refusing Mr Rai’s renewal was dated 8 August, confirming that the renewal was a day late.  Mr Rai’s application of 14 August was for a new licence.

The applicant Mr Rai attended the meeting and spoke in support of his case for a licence renewal.  Mr Rai told members that he had tried to renew his licence on 4 August but that his car was due for an MOT on 6 August which it subsequently failed and thus he thought he could not reapply for his licence without a valid MOT.  As the Depot was busy the car could not be fixed straightaway so it was left there for the work to be done and it passed its MOT on 8 August.   Mr Rai rang the council on 8 August to renew his licence, but was told it had expired. 

Members felt that the Officer’s stance had been unreasonable as it was only one day late, however the Officer pointed out that allowances were made for MOTs if they had been contacted and relevant forms stamped.

Councillor Thornton moved to vote, but questioned the resolution at 1.4.1, stating that the renewal should be granted.  The Solicitor advised the committee that it should vote on the recommendations as set out in the report.

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

1.    The application be granted because the Committee considers there to be sufficient grounds to deviate from the adopted policy; or

2.    The application be refused because the vehicle does not comply with the Council’s adopted policy.

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED that the application be granted because the Committee considered there to be sufficient grounds to deviate from the adopted policy.

The Chair made the comment that Officers should think carefully about how they use their discretion with situations of renewal one day after expiry, especially when the vehicle was overnight in the council depot.  A Member considered it was disgraceful that Mr Rai had been deprived of his income for a month, for the sake of one day.