Taxi Driver Online

Beverley car hire company Chauffeur Luxury ordered to pay East Riding Council £6,000



A COURT has ordered the owner of a luxury private hire car company in Beverley to pay East Riding Council costs of £6,000.

The order was made at Beverley Magistrates Court after the owner of Chauffeur Luxury, Marc Mason, withdrew his appeals against the council’s decision to revoke his private hire operator’s licence and his private hire drivers licence.

The council said today that as a result of the appeals being withdrawn, both the revocation of the private hire operator’s licence and the private hire driver’s licence remain in force.

A spokesman at the council said: “The council has a duty of care to the public to ensure the taxis and private hire vehicles they are using have the correct licenses in place.

“The council has no hesitation in revoking or suspending licenses if companies or drivers are found to be in breach – be it a luxury private hire business or a taxi on a local rank.”

Mr Mason could not be contacted for comment.


Read more: http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Beverley ... z43rGlTEoz

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

It would be interesting to find out exactly why his licences were revoked in the first place.

You can only imagine.

Or you can look at the minutes of the Licensing Committee in Beverly.

You could try July 2015, minuted item 781 looks favourite, but it might not be that one as there are no names.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

http://chauffeurluxury.co.uk/news/chauf ... -its-fleet

http://www.beverleyguardian.co.uk/news/ ... -1-1188352

http://www.scunthorpetelegraph.co.uk/Dr ... story.html

http://www.grahamstuart.com/2014/06/new ... -business/

all links are pretty useless

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

a link would help

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

781 TO CONSIDER AN APPLICATION MADE FOR THE RENEWAL OF A HACKNEY CARRIAGE/PRIVATE HIRE DRIVER’S LICENCE AND A NEW PRIVATE HIRE OPERATOR’S LICENCE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1976/TOWN POLICE CLAUSES ACT 1847 REF 03/07/2015 -

The Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report to consider the suspension of a hackney carriage/private hire driver’s licence following complaints relating to his conduct and non-compliance with the law.

In April 2008 the Council approved the hackney carriage and private hire licensing policy which was further amended in 2010, 2012 and 2013 to take account of changes in the legislation.

The Licensing Authority sought to ensure that an individual was a ‘fit and proper’ person to hold a licence; did not pose a threat to the public; that the public were safeguarded from dishonest persons and that children, young and vulnerable person were also safeguarded.

The policy enabled the Licensing Authority through its Committee to hold disciplinary hearings and determine applications. Drivers and operators were aware of the powers the Council has to take action, by way of official warnings, suspension, revocation or refusal to grant/renew a driver’s or PHO’s licence.

The applicant had held a private hire operator’s licence with the Authority since 2012 which expired April 2015 and a driver’s licence since 2007 which had expired 17 July 2015.

As part of the process for a renewal application, checks are carried out to satisfy the Licensing Authority that an applicant for a driver’s licence and private hire operator’s licence remains a fit and proper person, the private hire operator check was carried out at a basic level criminal record check.

On 23 April 2015, the applicant submitted a private hire operator’s renewal application which was incomplete and could not be granted as the basic criminal record check was missing from the documentation. The licence therefore could not be granted as a renewal and was dealt with as a new application.

On 4 June 2015, a subject access section 7 disclosure from the ACPO Criminal Records Office was received by the Licensing Team which showed that the applicant had been convicted of an offence in August 2014 which had not been reported to the Licensing Team and was a breach of licence conditions for both his operator’s and driver’s licence.

On 21 July 2014, the applicant was charged by Humberside Police for using threatening, abusive, insulting words/behaviour or disorderly behaviour following an incident that occurred on 16 January 2014. The applicant attended Hull Magistrates on 29 August, found guilty and sentenced to a six month conditional discharge. The applicant did not report this matter or his conviction to the Licensing Team which was a breach of his conditions and the licensing policy.

The applicant confirmed that the incident had taken place whilst he had been transporting a vulnerable child for Hull City Council in a community transport vehicle.

Issues were also raised by officers in relation to the applicant’s operating base. The applicant admitted that he did not possess a key or have access to the property detailed on the application form and worked mainly from his home address in Hull, neither could he recall the address of the operating base when asked by officers. The owner of the property used as the operating base had confirmed that the applicant did not have free access to the premises which was his home address. The applicant also admitted that he took bookings on his personal mobile telephone from his property in Hull which was unlawful as bookings were taken outside the East Riding of Yorkshire boundary. The applicant confirmed that there was no landline at the operating base and that he did sub-contract some bookings to another operator outside the East Riding district which was also unlawful.

A further incident had occurred on 13 March 2014 whilst the applicant had been working as a taxi driver when he had assaulted a motorcyclist where the matter was dealt with via community resolution. This incident had not been shared with licensing officers during meetings held in June and July 2015 to discuss the conviction from August 2014 but the information was disclosed by Humberside Police as part of an enhanced criminal record check.

It was confirmed that despite on-going contact between the Licensing Team and the applicant during July to October 2014 at no time were the incidents form January 2014 and March 2014 or the conviction in August 2014 mentioned to officers.

Members of the Committee, the Authority’s legal representative and the appellant’s representative were given the opportunity to ask questions of the Licensing Manager.

The applicant’s union representative attended the meeting and submitted representations on behalf of the applicant, along with the applicant and a supporter. Five letters giving the applicant a character reference were also submitted for the Committee to consider.

Following the submission, Members of the Committee, the Licensing Manager and the Authority’s legal representative were given the opportunity to ask questions of the applicant and his representative.

The applicant, his representative, his supporter and the Licensing Manager withdrew from the meeting whilst the Committee considered the decision.

The Committee took into account the written and oral representations made by the applicant’s representative and the Licensing Manager.

The applicant, his representative and the Licensing Manager were then invited back into the meeting and advised of the Committee’s decision.

Resolved - That the Committee refuse the application made for the renewal of a hackney carriage/private hire driver’s licence and a new private hire operator’s licence as they are not convinced that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold either a driver’s or a private
hire operator’s licence. In particular, the applicant has not met the standard expected of a licensed driver or operator in that he -

(a) was convicted at Court in August 2014 of a relevant offence;

(b) failed to notify the Licensing Authority of his conviction;

(c) was involved in inappropriate conduct whilst working as a taxi driver and did not report this to the Authority;

(d) admitted to taking bookings from outside the East Riding of Yorkshire district which is unlawful;

(e) has previous non-compliance with licence conditions and licensing law;

(f) was not honest when dealing with Licensing Officers over the past few months,
and

(g) has been aggressive when dealing with members of the Licensing Team, which is a breach of the Code of Conduct.

(The applicant and the Licensing Manager were advised that the decision would be confirmed in writing).

An upstanding pillar of the community then.

Pillar!...more like Pillock.

His middle name isn't Uber is it?

_________________
IDFIMH

Well finally figured out how to get back into my account this gentleman operated in my Parish He had a number of licenced vehicles that he used for wedding's and Proms ETC using un-licenced Driver's he assumed as you don't need licenced vehicles for weddings he doesn't need licenced drivers

Very wrong he was prosecuted for using unlicensed driver's and not having the correct insurance in place For some very strange reason he felt wronged and decided to appeal then cancelled And licensing duly shafted him For 6K

The words very stupid muppet comes to mind

Well he was nearly right.

_________________
Grandad,