Taxi Driver Online

Criminal checks on Bristol taxi drivers full of flaws

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bris ... rs-2703884

The checks are going to be tightened up


Image: Bristol Post

Bristol is set to tighten up its criminal checks on taxi drivers after the system was found to be full of holes.

Internal auditors assessed Bristol City Council’s system for licensing drivers of taxis and private-hire vehicles in the wake of sexual abuse scandals in towns such as in Rotherham and Rochdale.

They found Bristol’s licensing process was particularly flawed when it came to checks via the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) to find out whether an applicant has a criminal record.

The council’s chief internal auditor Jonathan Idle ran through the weaknesses his team identified at an audit committee meeting on March 26.

Mr Idle said one of the chief concerns was the council’s lack of records showing whether DBS checks had taken place.

“At the time, DBS documentation was not retained, and so we could not provide the assurance that those DBS checks had been undertaken,” he said. “We couldn’t say they have, and we couldn’t say they hadn’t.”

The auditors were also worried by the number of temporary renewal licenses being issued while the council waited for background check information to arrive.

Temporary licenses undermine the controls that are in place to protect the public, yet their number rose significantly last year.

“We see there are risks in doing that,” Mr Idle said.

The auditors also found that enhanced DBS checks were not being requested often enough to ensure the licensing committee had up-to-date information about an applicant’s criminal convictions, he said.

There was also no assurance that checks performed on DBS documents were accurate or that DBS details were recorded accurately.

And there was not enough control over the issuing of duplicate licenses, where originals are lost by the license holder, or over the stationery used to produce taxi license plates and taxi driver badges.

Mr Idle said his team made nine recommendations to address the problems, all of which will be put in place.

“Members are aware of the potential adverse implications for local authorities when taxi licensing operations do not work effectively,” he said, citing Rotherham and Rochdale.

The licensing assessment was carried out after the Department for Transport (DfT) published a report in September 2018 containing 34 recommendations to make the licensing of taxi and private hire vehicles safer and more robust.

The report was produced in response to government ministers’ concerns the current regulatory regime for taxi and private hire vehicle drivers is no longer fit for purpose.

Last month, the DfT launched a consultation on new licensing guidelines to better protect passengers.

Ideas include the compulsory installation of CCTV cameras in all taxis and a national licensing database to stop a driver banned from operating on one area of the country simply moving to another where checks are more lenient.

Labour councillor for Easton, Afzal Shah, said Bristol-licensed taxis were “in the minority” in the city now.

He asked whether the council was working closely enough with neighbouring authorities to manage the risks associated with taxi drivers licensed outside of Bristol.

Fiona Tudge, head of safeguarding, said: “We have got to reach out and work with our neighbouring authorities who are also working with the same issues.”

Surely the fact that the license was issued is the answer to the question, else the council are saying they issue licenses without checking the DBS, when it is due.

And it's pointless keeping the DBS as it is out of date as soon as it's printed.

_________________
IDFIMH

Only a numpty would recommend doing away with temporary licenses issued to cover for a delay in the DBS return.

_________________
IDFIMH

What is wrong with issuing the license for an existing driver it can always be withdrawn if something does show up instead of all the messing around with temp badges it must cost more

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

But fact that licence issued isn't proof that checks *have* been made? Think that's what the auditor is getting at - a year or two down the line and there's no documentary or other proof that the checks *have* been made - there's no 'audit trail', I think the expression is

On the other hand, isn't there stuff about it being illegal to retain the DBS checks - data protection and all that



Well I've never really got that, nor the related point above about not retaining DBS checks.

I mean, if a driver is up before the committee a couple of years down the line, surely his past history is important, part of which is as per the DBS checks?

And even if it's assumed the info is out of date, as far as keeping proper records is concerned it's important to retain these things - it's the audit trail thing again.

A bit like PH ops having to retain records of bookings (not sure how for how long) or drivers having to keep records for x years to satisfy HMRC.

Nothing.

_________________
IDFIMH

But then that would be recorded on his application.

The whole point of the DBS, in my opinion, is to confirm the information given to the council on the driver's application form.

_________________
IDFIMH

So if the DBS info is recorded and retained anyway in another form, what's the problem with retaining the actual DBS record?

Which in turn relates to a couple of the main points made by the auditor:





So no way or knowing if the information retained from the DBS was recorded accurately, no way of knowing that the original DBS information was scrutinised accurately, or that checks were made at all

So if a couple of years after a driver is granted a licence he has to appear before the committee for something-or-other, there's no way of knowing for sure whether the DBS disclosures are recorded accurately on the driver's record, or even whether they were recorded or checked at all

Of course, no system will be absolutely perfect, but auditor will be looking to see that the systems, procedures and controls are as 'robust' as possible, but no way of knowing that if they can't crosscheck the council's records with the original source of the information, namely the original DBS documents.

As I said, it's all about an 'audit trail' and 'supporting evidence', etc

And in auditing, supporting evidence is always more compelling if it comes from a third party, in this case the DBS.

It's a bit like HMRC inspecting your books. If they want evidence to support a £3,000 garage bill then it's no good simply saying that it must be correct because you've recorded it in your books. They'll want evidence, and an invoice from the garage (ie a third party) is pretty good evidence.

it's also a bit like a criminal trial - the more sources of evidence available, the more it's reasonable to draw conclusions from it. And if it's from an independent source (an independent witness, say, in a criminal trial), then the more persuasive it is as evidence.

They cannot keep a copy of a persons DBS document.

DBS comes to you and then you show it the licensing gestapo and they give it back to you after checking against your forms

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

Councils don't have powers to keep copies of DBS checks, whilst clearly they have powers to keep copies of applications.

Councils also have to have reasons to retain copies of any of our private details, such as those found on the DBS, I see no reason why they should keep copies of our DBS checks.

_________________
IDFIMH

Yes, and I made that point further up the thread in the context of trying to make the more general point about what nonsense all of this is.

And as regards the strictly legal point, doesn't the Bristol council auditor know?



Well I can't really get my head round that - seems born of the usual nonsense from officialdom.

I mean, if a driver is granted a three-year badge then appears before the committee after two years because of some transgression, surely the DBS stuff may be relevant to the process?

And if the relevant stuff *has* been recorded in another form, what's the point of *not* keeping the original source document from the DBS - seems like a distinction without a difference.

Then there's the basic record-keeping failing identified by the auditor - if there's no source documentation or record, how can anyone know if the council's own records are accurate?

All looks like data protection gone mad, to coin a phrase

But if it was recorded on one document why would you need it recorded again?

_________________
IDFIMH

In general terms (as opposed to the specifics here) because information is recorded in various forms in various places for the whole system to work.

To take a very basic piece of information like my name, it's recorded in various places with regard my taxi badge, most obviously my driving licence with regard to external sources. It then ends up in various places with regard to my badge, most obviously the application form, my badge and paper licence, and the licensing register, and no doubt other forms of council document, such as those to meet basic filing/paperwork requirements, and to send me relevant correspondence etc.

Can't see any particular problem with that as long as the relevant safeguards are in place.

Ditto, can't see any problem with the info on DBS disclosure being recorded separately, and to that extent can't see why it's necessary not to retain the source DBS disclosure.

And you can't check that the system is working properly unless you have access to all the relevant documentation, particularly that from external sources, so if the DBS check is not retained there's no way of knowing if the council's record of the driver is accurate.

In more practical terms, if a driver has been granted a badge despite an offence a couple of years previously, then if he commits another offence during the period of the licence then surely the previous offence is relevant. And if that's recorded in the council's record of the driver, why not retain that information in its original DBS form?

And if you don't retain the original DBS stuff, how can you check a couple of years later that the past offence is properly reflected in the council's records - it may have been recorded inaccurately, it may have been attributed to another driver, or it might not have been recorded by the council at all, thus councillors are in the dark because the DBS documentation hasn't been retained.

But we are talking here about the data being recorded twice by the same entity, and that in my view is pointless and unnecessary.

_________________
IDFIMH