Agenda item

Mr Neil Spencer – HCD757

The Senior Licensing Officer, Andy Fox, introduced the report regarding a review of the Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licence HCD757 for Mr Neil Spencer which was due for renewal on 4 February 2018.  He reminded members that this report had come to Committee in October, when it was decided to defer the item so Mr Spencer could familiarise himself with the background papers that he said he had not received.

The report explained that the council had received a number of complaints from the public about Mr Spencer’s behaviour, the details of which were outlined in the background papers.  In light of this, officers had taken the view that his Hackney Carriage Driver’s licence should be brought before the committee for a review.

The Officer drew members’ attention to two of the witness statements and advised that neither were community protection officers as stated in the paperwork.  The officer also referred members to the emails he had received from Inspector Tim Waterhouse and PS Andy White who had written in support of Mr Spencer.

In response to questions from members, the Officer replied that the number of complaints was only those before the committee today and that the complaints from 2011 and 2012 had been acted upon at the time.

The Officer further explained that Mr Spencer had received a verbal warning after the first occurrence, a written warning after the second occurrence, although there was no evidence to support that, and the third occurrence was before the committee today.   He confirmed that no action had been taken after the first two incidents as there was an enforcement protocol of steps to be taken before coming to committee.

The chair advised members that they needed to determine what weight to give to the first two incidents and to consider all three incidents before reaching a view.  The chair then invited the applicant to speak in support of his review.

Mr Spencer commented that after the first complaint in 2011, he made a statement and then heard nothing else until the October.  Following the second incident, he said that he rang the Licensing department concerning the CEO and was informed that as he had spoken to a Police Officer at the scene not to worry and then 2 or 3 weeks later he was asked to come in.  Mr Spencer said he had asked for a copy of the written warning but had never received one and the Licensing Officer confirmed this was the case as it did not exist.

With regard to the third incident, Mr Spencer admitted that he did make a comment, but not what was written down in the complainant’s statement.  He regretted his stupid remark but stated that he had been under personal pressure and stress with the illness of his father, who had since passed away.  The chair read out what was said as per Mr Spencer’s statement and asked Mr Spencer to confirm if that was correct and Mr Spencer agreed that it was.

One member had concerns about Mr Spencer’s alleged homophobic comments.  Mr Spencer denied being homophobic stating that he was going to a civil ceremony in April.

In summing up Mr Spencer reiterated that he regretted his off the cuff remark but commented that the last six months had been the worse of his life.  He had been a taxi driver for over 10 years and many of his fares were females who felt safe with him.  He referred to his two character references from the Police and said he was not a bad man.

One member questioned whether Mr Spencer had asked the Police Officers for their letters, to which Mr Spencer replied that he had asked the Inspector as he knew him and PS White wrote when he heard the Inspector had, because Mr Spencer helps the Police out. 

The chair invited the members to adjourn to discuss the matter and stated that they would take into account the comments of the Police Officers.  At this point, Mr Spencer handed over some more character references for the committee to consider.

Members left the Chamber at 14.40 and returned at 15.05.

The chair reported that the committee had considered this case carefully and that the matters alleged in the paperwork were serious and normally the committee would be considering revocation of the licence.  On this occasion, however, a serious written warning letter would be sent to Mr Spencer stating that if there were any further complaints about him then he would have to come back before the committee. 

Upon a vote, it was 7 for, 0 against.

RESOLVED THAT, Mr Spencer’s Hackney Carriage driver’s licence be continued because the committee was satisfied that he was a fit and proper person to hold such a licence and that a written warning be issued that upon receipt of any further complaints Mr Spencer return before the committee.

The chair hoped that he wouldn’t see Mr Spencer before the committee again and that he would drive carefully.