The Sub-Committee considered a report requesting the suspension/revocation of a Private Hire Vehicle Driver's Licence.

QA (Appendix 1) was present at the meeting and addressed the Sub-Committee and responded to questions.

In reaching its decisions the Sub-Committee gave due consideration to the written evidence contained in the paperwork, the oral evidence provided at the meeting by the Licensing Officer and by the applicant who attended, and to relevant legislation and the policies of Reading Borough Council, namely:

·                     The Town Police Clauses Act 1847

·                     The Local Government Miscellaneous (Provisions Act) 1976;

·                     The Secretary of State’s Guidance;

·                     Reading Borough Council's Private Hire Vehicle Conditions;

·                     Reading Borough Council's Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Criminal Convictions Policy;

·                     The Equality Act 2010;

·                     The Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Act 2022.

In reaching its decisions the Sub-Committee endeavoured to strike a fair balance between the interests of the applicant and the concerns of officers.

Resolved –

That the Private Hire Vehicle Driver’s Licence in respect of QA be revoked with immediate effect due to reasons of public safety, QA not being considered a fit and proper person to hold such a licence and for the reasonable causes pursuant to section 61 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 by reason of:

a)            The nature of the conviction from 16 June 2023 as detailed within the report;

b)            The number of breaches of licence conditions and traffic regulations;

c)            Concern over the safety of the public given the circumstances of the conviction and breaches in (a) and (b) above;

d)            The list of previous licence suspensions and the very short period of time between breaches of licence conditions;

e)            QA's failure to declare their previous suspension, that they had been charged with an offence and their subsequent conviction, in breach of licensing conditions;

f)             The Sub-Committee not finding QA’s answers to Councillors’ questions convincing, nor that they understood the gravity of their previous transgressions, nor their recent criminal conviction, with QA seeking always to place the blame on others and finding it difficult to take responsibility for their own actions.

QA was advised of their right of appeal and that if on doing so they lost their appeal that RBC would seek to recover any costs in relation to the appeal.

(Exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 5)