Agenda and draft minutes

Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Council Offices, Coalville

Contact: Democratic Services  01530 454512

No. Item


Election of Chairman


It was moved by Councillor J Hoult, seconded by Councillor T Saffell and




Councillor R Morris take the chair for the remainder of the meeting.



Apologies for Absence


There were no apologies for absence.



Declarations of Interest

Under the Code of Conduct members are reminded that in declaring disclosable interests you should make clear the nature of that interest and whether it is pecuniary or non-pecuniary.



There were no declarations of interest.



Exclusion of Press and Public

The officers consider that the press and public should be excluded during consideration of the following items in accordance with Section 100(a) of the Local

Government Act 1972 as publicity would be likely to result in disclosure of exempt

or confidential information.





In pursuance of Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act, and in the circumstances of the matter under consideration, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.



Consideration of a Dual Driver's Licence


The Chairman introduced the parties and outlined the procedure to be followed.


The Licensing Enforcement Officer presented the report, which asked members to consider the conduct of a Dual Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver. Following the report of the Licensing Officer, neither the panel nor the applicant and his representative had any questions. Councillor R Morris asked the licensed driver to confirm that he accepted the report, which the licensed driver established he did.


The licensed driver was invited to make his representation, for which his solicitor, Mr Khomar Masud, spoke on his behalf.


Mr Masud argued that the licensed driver was a “fit and proper person”, able to provide a public service, he then focused on the complaint of financial gain from a member of the public. Mr Masud asserted that the customer in question was a regular user of A1 taxis who had a good relationship with the licensed driver and had no complaint against him. It was alleged that in May 2020 the customer offered a loan to the licensed driver, who declined it on this occasion, however in May 2021 when the customer reiterated this offer of a loan, the licensed driver accepted. He claimed that this was due to financial pressures caused by the Covid Pandemic and also due to his absence from work due to illness.


The licensed driver felt that the customer and himself had developed a friendship and admitted he visited for coffee once or twice a week and also delivered takeaway food to the customer, which was paid for “out of his own pocket”. The licensed driver also admitted to carrying out “odd jobs” for the customer and felt that he had been “helpful” to her. In hindsight, he accepted  that he should not have done these things, and declared that given the opportunity, would think harder about the roles and responsibilities of a cab driver.


The licensed driver reiterated that he felt the money was given to him on the basis that it was a loan of the customer’s own accord and stated that he always intended to pay this money back in full.


The licensed driver and his representative also wished to highlight that the complaint had not come from the customer, but from the customer’s daughter who, it was alleged, came to the driver’s place of work and acted in an aggressive manner when she discovered that the money had gone from her mother’s account.


A witness statement was read out, detailing the opinion of the witness and alleging that the licensed driver had isolated the customer from her friend. The licensed driver denied this was the case, and instead argued that he had encouraged the customer to make amends following differences she had experienced with her friend.


The daughter of the customer had provided a statement to A1 Cars, stating that her mother was vulnerable, but the licensed driver disputed that she was, and declared that she was able to talk about family and also asserted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.