Lots of potential talking points here, such as the fact that he's had a TfL licence should mean there's no reason he shouldn't be granted one by the council here. But, of course, there's a great song and dance about it all.
Or whether seven years is an appropriate disqualification for a one-off plying for hire offence anyway?
Or why he got a TfL licence during that period?
And what's the non-disclosure thing - he seems to have disclosed the revocation, but not the actual offence?
On the other hand, he does seem to have a couple of 'misunderstandings' about basic rules...
Taxi driver cleared to work in Fareham after past illegal pick-up
https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/polit ... up-8668144
A taxi driver whose previous private hire licence was revoked after he was caught picking up a passenger without a booking can now work in Fareham.
The licensing panel at Fareham Borough Council agreed to grant the licence for the applicant, referred to as ‘Mr G’, following a hearing at the civic offices on Tuesday (June 9).
The panel heard that his former licence with Aylesbury Vale District Council was revoked in July 2019 after an incident on November 3, 2018, when he was found plying for hire and consequently did not have valid insurance for the journey.
He told the panel the offence happened early in his taxi driving career, shortly after he was first licensed. He accepted responsibility for picking up a passenger without a pre-booking and said he “had misunderstood the legal requirements” around pre-booked journeys for private hire drivers.
The panel was told his licence was later revoked by Aylesbury Vale, but that he was told he could reapply after a period of time.
He now holds a current licence with Transport for London, and there have been no reported concerns about his conduct since.
Members considered the case and assessed whether he met the legal requirement of being a “fit and proper person”.
Convictions, complaints, and patterns of behaviour are all taken into account. Councillors also examined an issue around non-disclosure on his application form. He told the panel this was due to a genuine misunderstanding of the wording.
The panel noted he had disclosed the previous revocation from Aylesbury Vale, which they felt supported his explanation that there was no deliberate attempt to mislead the council.
The panel noted that the seven-year period usually applied to insurance offences is nearly up.
Given how much time has passed, his clean record with Transport for London and the lack of any further issues, councillors decided there were good reasons to grant the licence.
They ruled that Mr G is a fit and proper person to hold a private hire driver’s licence and agreed it should be granted.
This was one of four applications heard by members on Tuesday.
