Taxi Driver Online

Not at all clear what's going on here. The reference to 'taxi driver' (actually PH) in the headline and article suggest it's an existing driver applying for a licence renewal.

But then the DBS check refers to convictions from as far back as 1970, suggesting that it's a new application.

But twice the piece refers to the applicant driving a plated vehicle


Taxi driver refused licence after criminal background emerges

http://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/news ... d-emerges/

A TAXI driver in Sedgemoor has had their 'Private Hire Drivers' licence turned down after details emerged about their criminal past.

Sedgemoor District Council's Licensing Panel heard the case into 'Taxi Driver I' after a DBS check revealed seven previous convictions.

The first offence took palce in 1970 when the applicant was 20 years old with the more recent offence occurring in 2008 when they were 58.

Taxi Driver I's DBS check revealed four convictions for violence, three of which were for grievous and actual bodily harm.

A spokesman for Sedgemoor District Council's Licensing Panel said: "Whilst acknowledging that the last of those convictions was in 1998 when the applicant was 48, the fact remained that this demonstrated a pattern of unacceptable behaviour over 28 years."

The taxi driver also had one offence of drink driving on their record from 2007.

At the hearing Taxi Driver I was open about their criminal past, and said that all the convictions were related to alcohol and they were now teetotal.

On several occasions Taxi Driver I 'justified' their actions saying they had been part of a group, had not had a good solicitor or because of finances.

The SDC spokesperson continued: "The concern of the Panel was the violent nature of the many offences together with the motoring, especially the drink drive offence."

The Panel was particularly concerned with a complaint received against Taxi Driver I on June 11 this year, which alleged that while driving a plated private hire taxi, they had verbally abused a learner driver.

Taxi Driver I confirmed the incident but denied being abusive.

The spokesperson said: "Taxi Driver I’s subsequent various attempts at an explanation regarding the theft of their vehicle plates which may or may not have been a practical joke and whether it was even them driving on June 11 bordered on the ridiculous.

"The nature of the incident severely called into question whether Taxi Driver I was truly reformed or whether in times of stress their previous propensity for violence when provoked might quickly resurface."

At the hearing the applicant confirmed that since their vehicle had been plated they had given lifts to friends and been given money for diesel despite not yet having a licence.

The Panel also heard that the applicant had parked in a disabled bay without authorisation.

They were not satisfied that Taxi Driver I was a fit and proper person to hold a private hire licence and refused the application.

If it is a new application, (which it sounds like) he’s coming into this game at 68 yrs old. Crazy

large numbers of pensioners are going back into the workplace because retirement is unaffordable and some do choose this trade we've had many round here over the years. Local supermarkets probably have 25 percent of the workforce over 65 so it's not odd.

I used to have a driver in his early 70's he lived in a bedsit with not a penny to his name after 3 divorces and smoked so needed to work to afford to live. Eventually he had to retire because his health was no longer good enough

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

To answer the question posed in the thread title I think the council did the right thing.

The fella has/had a problem with drink, and truth be told that never goes away. Some people can control it, but it's always there.

_________________
IDFIMH

The question posed actually had nothing to do with the applicant's suitability

However, the applicant's suitability is a very relevant response to the article

Have amended the title of the thread to add some clarity

Of course, another possibility is that it was a suspension hearing, or whatever, but the piece says the panel 'refused the application', which presumably means it was either an application to renew an existing licence, or an application for the grant of a new one.

Of course, as per the other piece about the room for the wheelchair, it may be that the newspaper's report hasn't quite got to grips with the legal niceties/technicalities of the thing.