Stockton is a bit like Glasgow - an LDRS reporter regularly posts this kind of stuff about applications, suspensions and revocations etc.
Main difference is that the Glasgow pieces tend to deal only with a singe case. And the Glasgow cases seem to have the reporter actually attending the committee meetings, while Stockton's seem to trawl through the minutes when they're published. I suspect the Glasgow approach maybe more likely to throw up something juicy, because the type of daft remarks from councillors often reported probably won't be recorded in the minutes
Anyway, interesting enough stuff, but all fairly routine in the grand scheme of things, and nothing particularly remarkable...
Interesting contrast between the Wolves and Middlesborough approaches to the driver's badges right at the end, though. Although not enough detail in terms of history to draw any definitive conclusions, I'd say
Two taxi drivers refused private hire licences over criminal convictionshttps://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/tees ... s-32938674Stockton Council's licensing committee heard applications for private hire licences, also including a driver with a history of written warningsTwo drivers have been refused private hire licences because of previous convictions, including careless driving and assault. Stockton Council's general licensing committee also heard how a third driver's bid for a licence failed because he had received written warnings and advice at least six times, showing his "attitude towards breaking the rules" despite his expressions of remorse.
And a fourth driver's application was successful when he showed the police had dropped criminal allegations against him almost three years after his arrest, minutes from the licensing committee's most recent meetings show. In one case, a driver applied for a new private hire driver licence, but had live DVLA points for "major traffic offences", a relevant conviction and a complaint from another council.
A licensing officer said the motorist had a written warning following a complaint about driving standards in 2019, a conviction for careless driving in 2019 and a fixed penalty notice for using a phone while driving in 2024.
The driver's representative argued the fixed penalty notice did not amount to a conviction and was wrongly issued because the phone was in a cradle. The committee said there was no supporting evidence to substantiate this claim and they could still consider it when deciding on the licence.
They "expressed concern about the pattern of driving-related incidents within a relatively short period", the minutes say. "Members agreed that, taken together, the history indicated behaviour falling below the standard expected of a licensed driver."
They decided the driver was not a "fit and proper person" to hold a private hire driver's licence, refusing the application.
Motorist said assault was self-defenceIn a separate case, a civil engineer and quantity surveyor's convictions were revealed in a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check. The driver in that case had convictions for assault causing actual bodily harm and criminal damage from 2020.
He told the committee he had been "trapped by two people that he knew" and acted in self-defence. He said there were issues of a personal nature and he felt the convictions were not his fault and out of his control, but pleaded guilty on his solicitor's advice "to save time and stress".
However the committee refused his application, saying the convictions were "listed as offences of a violent nature under the council's licensing policy".
A third driver applied for a hackney carriage and private hire driver licence. He previously had his licence revoked and an application refused by the committee in February, when it noted his history, "in addition to his responses to three complaints before the committee at the time, demonstrated a pattern in relation to his attitude towards breaking the rules.
Driver said 'he was sorry'"The committee noted, at that time, that [the driver] had already received written warnings and advice on at least six occasions during his career." At the latest hearing, the motorist "expressed remorse and told members he was sorry for what had happened and asked for another chance and if granted would never again appear in front of committee again".
The committee was not convinced. They still felt he was not a "fit and proper person" and refused his application: "The committee felt that nothing had changed since [his] application in February 2025 to give them confidence that he was safe and suitable to be licenced by this authority."
In a fourth case, a driver had been arrested in July 2022 on suspicion of two alleged offences - possessing a Class A drug with intent to supply and possessing an offensive weapon in a public place. But he showed that the police dropped the matter.
He brought a letter from his solicitor outlining that the police informed them in June this year that they "intended to take no further action" against the motorist and he was no longer under investigation. Documents were sent from Cleveland Police to Stockton Council showing the same thing.
The committee was shown a letter from Middlesbrough Council revoking a previous hackney carriage and private hire driver's licence with them. Another authority, Wolverhampton Council, did not suspend or revoke his licence.
The minutes say: "The committee found [the applicant] to be believable and noted that he had denied the allegations made against him. The committee therefore determined that [his] application should be granted, as they believed that he was a fit and proper person."
Login
Register
FAQ
