Meeting documents

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest.

Prior to the consideration of the report, the Legal Advisor to the Sub Committee referred to correspondence received from Mr Boston and advised Members that he could see no reason why the report could not be considered at the meeting that evening.

The Licensing Enforcement Officer introduced the report which asked
Members to consider the Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Driver's Licence as detailed.

At that point Mr Boston reiterated what he had raised at the previous meeting, he stated that he did not accept the witness statements as detailed within the report and would like to question the witnesses. As the witnesses were not in attendance he urged Members to disregard them.

The Legal Advisor referred to a letter he had faxed to Mr Boston's office the previous week as it answered the issue that Mr Boston had raised. Mr Boston stated that he had not received the letter. The Legal Advisor advised that witnesses were not usually called and on the occasions that they were called, cross examination was not permitted. He added that on this occasion the witnesses had been invited to attend but had declined.

Mr Boston asked the Licensing Enforcement Officer if she was aware that the witnesses did not hold licences but were still operating as drivers. The Licensing Enforcement Officer explained that she was aware and that action had been taken. Mr Boston continued to question the Licensing Enforcement Officer on the same subject and was advised by the Legal Advisor to discontinue as it was not relevant to his clients case.

Mr Boston asked the Licensing Enforcement Officer if she was aware of the complaint procedure for the taxi company referred to within the report. The Licensing Enforcement Officer stated that she was aware and explained the procedure for the benefit of the Sub Committee. Mr Boston stated that what had been explained was a broad statement and asked if the Licensing Enforcement Officer was aware of a strict written policy. The Legal Advisor once again referred to the letter sent to Mr Boston as this issue had already been addressed. Mr Boston accepted an offer to receive a copy of the letter and an opportunity to read it before further questions were asked.

The meeting adjourned at 6.53pm to allow Mr Boston to read the letter from the Legal Advisor and re-convened at 7.00pm.

Mr Boston asked the Licensing Enforcement Officer when she was first aware of the racist behaviour aimed at his client during his employment at the taxi company. The Licensing Enforcement Officer stated that she had been made aware during his interview. Subsequently the records were checked and a racism complaint had first been recorded in September 2006.

In response to a question from a Member, the Licensing Enforcement Officer stated that there were approximately 50 taxi drivers at the company referred to within the report and in the last year she had received one complaint regarding mobile phone use which involved one of the 50 drivers.

There were no further questions for the Licensing Enforcement Officer.

Mr Boston put forward his client's case to the Sub Committee. Mr Boston stated the following points:

- He acknowledged that any substantiated complaints should be considered alongside the number of years his client had held a licence.

- He explained that his client had held a licence for 18 months longer than stated within the report within another county.

Mr Boston addressed each complaint individually as follows:

Complaint 1, as detailed within paragraph 2.2 of the report - Mr Boston explained it was a minor infraction and his client had accepted it. He also stated that when the incident occurred, his client had already held a licence for six years.

Complaint 2, as detailed within paragraph 2.3 of the report - Mr Boston stated that no further action was taken and there was no official caution, therefore it should be disregarded.

Complaint 3, as detailed within paragraph 2.6 of the report - Mr Boston explained that the booking policy regarding pre quoted fares was printed on the booking forms. The policy stated that if the route was diverted from the original booking, the mileage would be charged at the standard rate. An example booking form was circulated to the Members.

The licence holder explained what had happened on this occasion which led to the complaint. He explained that the passengers were very rude and made racist comments. The passengers asked to be taken to different destinations and requested a quote from the licence holder and not from the office which is what should happen. He explained that once he had given them a quote, they complained and physically took hold of him. The licence holder stated that he had quoted £69 and if he was to calculate it correctly, it would have amounted to over £100.

Mr Boston stated that there was a difference in price due to the change of the terms of the journey.

Complaint 4, as detailed within paragraphs 2.9 and 2.10 of the report - Mr Boston stated that his client had not been informed by the controller of the baby that was with the passengers and he was following procedures by adding a charge for an extra passenger.

Complaint 5, as detailed within paragraph 2.11 of the report - Mr Boston explained that the additional fee was charged due to a diversion from the original route. He stated that the allegation of the additional fare not being submitted to the taxi company was false as his client had all the paperwork which had been signed to prove that this had taken place. The paperwork was circulated to Members. The licence holder explained the route that he had taken during the job and stated that the additional fare was not unreasonable.

The meeting adjourned at 7.35pm for two minutes whilst the licence holder and Mr Boston had a discussion away from the meeting.

Complaint 6, as detailed in paragraph 2.13 - Mr Boston stated that the witnesses named within the report disliked his client and had used racist behaviour towards him. He stated that the information within the complaint was not an accurate explanation of the incident.

Mr Boston circulated three letters of support of his client to the Members.

The Licensing Enforcement Officer asked the licence holder, what steps he had taken with regards to reporting the racist allegations. The licence holder explained that he reported it to Mr J Peters (the Licensing Enforcement Officer at the time) who then contacted the owner of the taxi company. After that, action was taken and the racist behaviour ceased.

The Licensing Enforcement Officer stated that it was unusual to receive so many complaints regarding one driver and asked the licence holder to explain why he had received so many. Mr Boston responded that in comparison to the number of years his client had held a licence, the number of complaints were not that significant.

The Legal Advisor for the Committee and Mr Boston discussed the procedure of the meeting and why all complaints could be considered whether they had been substantiated or not. As it was requested, this was also clarified for Members.

A Member asked the licence holder to clarify what had happened during the incident as detailed within appendix 12 of the report as the Lady involved was extremely upset. Members were concerned regarding the licence holder's conduct. Mr Boston explained that his client was upset due to an earlier dispute with a colleague and unfortunately he could not safely fit the large packages into his vehicle. As another driver had already refused to take the lady, she was understandably upset. Mr Boston stated that he disputed the comments regarding this incident as written within the report.

A Member asked Mr Boston, due to his comments, if he believed that all of the information within the report was untrue. Mr Boston stated that he believed that some of the information within the report had been embellished by the witness and should not be considered.

In response to a number of questions from Members, the licence holder stated the following:

- He had not attended the Council's conduct training because he had undertaken a drivers NVQ and that had covered driver conduct within it.

- He had not reported the racist incidents to the police as he did not want to lose his job. Plus he had a large loan on his vehicle to pay for.

- Although he was treated badly he could not return to is previous company as it was based in Ashby and his new vehicle was not appropriate for town work as it was an eight seater vehicle.

Mr Boston summarised his previous points during his closing remarks.

At 9.05pm the Sub Committee adjourned for consideration and reconvened at 9.45pm.

The decision was read out by the Legal Advisor.