Taxi Driver Online

Warning over Chichester district driver checks


A STRONG warning is being sent direct to home secretary Theresa May on risks facing people in the Chichester district following a decision by the Criminal Records Bureau which severely curbs checks on drivers of taxis and private hire vehicles.


‘Grave concerns’ for the safety of the travelling public were expressed in a report presented to the district council’s licensing and enforcement committee, and Mrs May is being told the move could result in ‘loss of life or injury.’

One councillor described the situation as ‘quite scary.’

The fears centre on a ruling by the bureau that it can no longer accept requests for information on drivers at a level designated as ‘enhanced.’

Committee members were told the council, which is responsible for licensing hackney carriage and private hire drivers, had had no choice but to revert to the so-called ‘standard’ level.

The standard disclosure provides only previous conviction details retained on the Police National Computer (PNC).

Applications at the enhanced level are checked with the PNC, a Department of Health list, the Department of Education Independent Safeguarding Authority, and the chief officer of police for the licence applicant’s local area.

A draft letter by committee chairman John Ridd, which is being sent to Mrs May, was approved by councillors.

This said that at the enhanced level the chief officer of police might disclose intelligence information retained about an applicant.

“It is my understanding that on many occasions this part of the disclosure has proved to be of the highest value in determining not to grant a licence to a particular individual,” Cllr Ridd added in the letter.

Council officers must decide whether a new applicant or an existing licence holder was a fit and proper person to hold a Hackney carriage or private hire licence.

“It is well known that the role of taxi drivers brings them into frequent contact with children, vulnerable adults and other members of the public who may be ‘vulnerable’ due to their physical condition or as a result of alcohol or drug use,” said the letter.

The message from the CRB was quite clear, and the council had decided it would no longer submit disclosure requests for taxi drivers at the enhanced level.

The CRB took the view without any prior warning or consultation that because taxi drivers were not listed under the Police Act 1997, anyone who submitted a request at the enhanced level would risk prosecution.

Senior technical officer Ian Smith said the situation needed to be rectified by placing a statutory instrument before parliament.

“I understand the Home Office has recognised this, and that moves will be made,” he added.

Cllr Anne Scicluna said she found the situation quite scary. Action should be taken for the sake of the safety of the public.

source: http://www.chichester.co.uk/news/local/warning_over_chichester_district_driver_checks_1_3267216

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

The CRB have stopped doing yearly checks as well, once a driver has been checked and they don't leave the trade they no longer need annual or 3 yearly checks
If they leave the trade all they require is a number, so that any potential employer can enter it on the CRB web site and get an instant print off, my 2 daughter have had this, one works in the hospital and the other is at college doing child care

Try telling that to our lot who insist on yearly checks.

_________________
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Believe me, don't get Mercury X2

All the info is on the crb web site

Ours only have 3 yearly checks but they are enhanced

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

And illegal.

_________________
IDFIMH

Apparently so

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

Letter from Chichester to Home secretary

Dear Home Secretary,

Re: Criminal Records Bureau Enhanced Level Checks for Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Drivers

Chichester District Council is a Local Authority with responsibility for licensing Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Drivers. You will be aware that many other local authorities throughout the United Kingdom have the same function and responsibility. Chichester is not a unitary authority and at county level, West Sussex County Council is responsible for school transport coordination.

You will be aware that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA)(Exceptions) Order 1975 serves as a gateway for access to the Disclosure Service and lists those occupations, professions and positions considered to be exempt from the ROA provisions designed to protect individuals from the unnecessary disclosure of their spent convictions. However, Schedule 2 Section 4 of the Act lists taxi driver licences as an excepted position, exempted from the ROA provisions. This Order allows for Standard Level Disclosures to be submitted to the Criminal Records Bureau.

To qualify for the higher level of Disclosure, Enhanced, the employment or position must be prescribed in legislation and listed in Part V of the Police Act 1997 as prescribed by
Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) (Amendment) Regulations. The issuing of a licence in respect of a hackney carriage or private hire driver is not prescribed in those regulations and therefore does not meet the criteria to be submitted at the Enhanced level application.



The protection of the travelling public is the prime consideration for every Local Authority. It is a matter of regret that some licensed taxi drivers have caused death and serious mental and physical injury to the public. In order to issue a drivers licence, licensing authorities must have the best and most comprehensive information available. The tragic circumstances that led to the deaths of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in Soham serve to illustrate what can go wrong when a lack of information results in dangerous individuals gaining employment in a position of trust. Sir Michael Bichard’s enquiry into these murders recommended a ‘stronger and consistent vetting procedure’.

The Standard Disclosure only provides conviction details retained on the Police National Computer (PNC). Applicants checked to the Enhanced Disclosure level are checked against the PNC, the Department of Health List 99, the Department of Education Independent Safeguarding Authority and the Chief Officer of Police for the applicant’s local area. At the Enhanced level, the Chief Officer of Police may disclose intelligence information retained about an applicant and it is my understanding that on many occasions this part of the disclosure has proved to be of the highest value in determining not to grant a licence to a particular individual.

My Officers must decide whether a new applicant or an existing licence holder is a fit and proper person to hold a hackney carriage or private hire licence. It is well known that the role of taxi driver brings them into frequent contact with children, vulnerable adults and other members of the public who may be ‘vulnerable’ due to their physical condition or as a result of alcohol or drug use.

For many years the Criminal Records Bureau, understanding this responsibility upon licensing authorities, have chosen to ignore the fact that taxi drivers are not listed under Part V and have processed checks at the Enhanced level. In March 2011, the “CRB News” (Issues15) published a short article entitled ‘Taxi Drivers – Standard or Enhanced?’ The basis of this article advised their users that taxi drivers were not listed under the Act and an Enhanced CRB check for this purpose would be unlawful. The article conceded that ‘in certain circumstances some drivers will be carrying out ‘regulated’ activity for the purposes of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 but only when they transport children or vulnerable adults to and from a regulated activity AND it is organised by the providers of the regulated activity or an organisation working on their behalf eg local authority school contract or NHS contract’. The article ended with the comment that ‘it is not a regulated activity if a child/vulnerable adult hires a taxi in the street or by telephone.’

The CRB took this view without any prior warning or consultation.

The message from CRB is quite clear. Taxi drivers are not listed under Part V of the Police Act 1997 and anyone who submits a request at the Enhanced level will risk prosecution. After giving this matter careful consideration, my Director and Lead Signatory has decided that Chichester District Council will no longer submit CRB disclosure requests for taxi drivers at the Enhanced level.

This decision was not taken lightly and there is very serious concern that this decision may result in the loss of life or injury. Chichester District Council is not a unitary authority and does not organise or control arrangements for local school transport. My Officers are in contact with West Sussex County Council Transport Coordination Group to advise them that those drivers licensed by Chichester as taxi drivers and who service school contracts, will not be checked at the Enhanced level with CRB. As a consequence, West Sussex County Council will have to submit a second CRB check at the Enhanced level for those particular drivers and this will lead to another ‘layer’ of bureaucracy and cost to the local authority or the taxi trade.

May I also refer you to this recent Media Release from the Regulatory Support Unit at Local Government Group on the subject of Enhanced level CRB checks for hackney carriage and private hire drivers:

http://www.local.gov.uk/web/10161/media ... S-TEMPLATE

As a matter of urgency, I would urge you to investigate this anomaly further with a view to introducing emergency legislation, adding taxi drivers as a further category to Part V of the Police Act 1997.

Yours sincerely

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

So it's clear that LA's cannot ask for enhanced checks (my latest form doesn't state it's for standard or enhanced though, but the price is more than the last one was) but can they legally ask for a CRB check every 3 years (or sooner)?

Also my LA requests a medical every three years, yet my doctor says it's valid for five. So again legally, can the LA demand one every three ?

They can demand what they like until a court says they are being unreasonable.

From my reading of the Best Practice Guidance it appears the DfT say medicals should be undertaken every renewal, which I haven't realised.

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/t ... -guide.pdf

_________________
IDFIMH