Agenda item

The Licensing Committee received an enforcement update on the implementation of the Council’s new hackney carriage and private hire licensing policy, (the “Policy”) in September 2021. The Licensing Service committed to provide routine reports to the Committee related to application of the Policy.   More specifically, the intention was to provide annual performance reports supplemented by quarterly reports on enforcement activities, the outcome of court proceedings and statistical data on licences issued. 

The Principal Licensing Officer reported that the introduction and implementation of the new Policy, together with the corresponding alignment of service provision across the former District Council’s controlled areas, had been a significant undertaking with many challenges.  Council officers and the local taxi and private hire trade have had to adjust to new procedures and ways of workings as a consequence of the policy changes.  Throughout this period, robust measures have remained in place to ensure that, in line with statutory and best practice guidance, only those considered fit and proper to hold licences were permitted to do so. 

The Principal Licensing Officer went through the report and the following points were highlighted: -

·       On 31st March 2022, 2059 vehicles were licensed with the Council. During the reference period the Council received 1553 licence applications for vehicle licences.  Of this figure, 486 applications were for new licences and 1067 were applications to renew existing licences.  22 of the refused vehicle applications relate to vehicles that failed to meet the Council’s Policy requirement.  Specifically, these applications were submitted for vehicles that had been deemed category S (structural) vehicle insurance write offs. In all instances, as was required, applicants were offered the opportunity to make representation before a final decision was taken. With respect to the rejected applications, applications were rejected for a variety of reasons but often because they were not complete and valid.  Where possible officers try to avoid rejecting applications and support was provided to help encourage applicants to submit valid applications.

·       On 31st March 2022, 3013 drivers were licensed with the Council.  During the reference period, the Council received 728 driver licence applications: 143 from new drivers and 585 from drivers applying to renew.   5 applications received during the period were refused on the basis that officers were not satisfied that the applicants could be considered fit and proper to be licensed with reasons such as driving without appropriate insurance, mobile phone conviction or failed to disclose licence refusal. 66 applications were attributable to applicants submitting multiple incomplete applications. 28 applications were referred to an officer for further investigation as issues of concern had arisen during the application process.

·       On 31st March 2022, 219 private hire vehicle operators were licensed with the Council.  During the reference period, the Council received 29 new and 43 renewal operator applications.  The 29 rejected applications were mainly attributable to applicants submitting multiple incomplete applications. 

·       In addition to determining applications, the Licensing Service regulates taxi and private hire operations through reactive and proactive activity.  Reactive work was typically in response to incident reports and complaints received from members of the public, other agencies within and external to the Council, and from members of the taxi and private hire trade. Proactive work was typically pre-arranged activities, often based on intelligence, and may involve targeting locations and/or activities such as large events, areas used by the potentially vulnerable such as schools, or specific operations such as “plying for hire” and multi-agency visits.  Since the implementation of the new Policy, most of the activity had been reactive, with more proactive activity planned over the coming months. The Licensing Service had revised the Council’s online reporting system, available via the Council’s web pages, which now integrated directly with the back-office system used within the service.  99 recorded complaints were received by the Licensing Service during the reference period.  Between 1st January 2022 and 31st March 2022, 56 complaints were received relating to areas such as driving standards, behaviour, parking, safeguarding and vehicle condition. There were only 2 safeguarding complaints.

·       During the reference period, 6th September 2021 to 31st March 2022, 58 investigations were instigated in respect of drivers and 3 in respect of operators.  The latter 3 investigations relate to instances of failure to notify changes of company directors and concerns relating to vehicle maintenance. In respect of drivers grounds for investigation related to areas such as accidents, driver behaviour, driving standards and offence related. During the reference period, 8 drivers had their licences revoked, one of which was currently under appeal via the Magistrates Court.  During the reference period, 14 drivers had their licences suspended one of the main reason being failure to provide an outstanding medical certificate. 

·       During the reference period 605 vehicles were suspended.  Vehicles were suspended for a wide variety of reasons but most typically on annual inspection where the vehicle did not meet the Council’s Policy standards but there was no immediate risk to passenger safety. In accordance with the legal provision, once served with a notice the vehicle proprietor had 21 days to rectify the issue before the suspension takes effect. During the reference period 14 vehicle licences were revoked.  The grounds for revocation of these vehicles included significant accident damage or vehicles not in a road worthy condition.

·       During the reference period, 2 operator licences were revoked. These licences were in respect of the same operator, who held separate licences with 2 of the legacy Council areas.  The grounds for revocation were a series of issues including safeguarding concerns, failure to notify change of operating base and operating with unlicensed drivers.

·       During the reference period 3 appeals were served on the Magistrates Court. 2 cases were heard on appeal at the Magistrates Court. In October 2021, Magistrates upheld the Council’s decision to revoke a driver’s licence on grounds that included conviction for illegal plying for hire by another authority, failure to inform the Council of the conviction and failure to disclose a speeding conviction. The appellant was ordered to pay £560 towards the Council’s costs (£1917). In February 2022, Magistrates allowed an appeal, overturning the Council’s decision to revoke a driver’s licence on the basis that the driver had been dishonest and demonstrated poor standards of driving.  The hearing was adjourned immediately following the judgement with reasons for the decision and legal argument regarding costs still to be heard.

·       With the new Policy Councillors agreed that decision making on licensing applications would be delegated to Council officers, as permitted under the Council’s constitution.  The basis for this decision was that Buckinghamshire Council was one of the largest taxi licensing authorities in the country with a large number of applications received per annum. The Policy currently stated that, as part of the decision-making process, applications would “generally” be considered by a panel of Council officers tasked with making a recommendation to a senior officer who would then make the final decision. In practice this panel step had proved to be impractical, causing delays in the decision-making process, without any significant tangible benefit.  As a result, the decision-making process had recently been thoroughly reviewed by senior officers of the Council’s Licensing Service and Legal Services and the consensus view was that the recommendation of a decision by a panel of officers was an unnecessary step in the current process that created duplication and delay, and negatively impacted licence holders and applicants. It was proposed that instead, the final decision on issuing a licence should fall to an individual authorised officer with the necessary training, skills, competence, and experience to make the decision. In accordance with the Council’s constitution, minor changes to the Policy, where formal consultation was not considered necessary, may be made with the agreement of the Chairman of the Licensing Committee, Cabinet Member for Regulatory Services, and the Head of Service.

During discussion the following points were noted:-

·       A Member asked, in addition to the number of new applications and licences granted, would it be possible to report the number of licences not renewed, lapsed or surrendered. In addition he asked why the fee was refunded if the licence was refused. If the Council was aiming to be cost neutral then the fee should still be applied for administration of applications. The Principal Licensing Officer reported that where possible the service recouped the costs such as through the driving assessment tests, which the drivers booked themselves. However there was a legal provision that if a licence was not granted then the Council could not retain the fee. A Member expressed concern that this gave the Council an incentive to grant the application to keep the fee. The Head of Service reported that this incentive did not exist within the service but that they tried to process applications as quickly as possible whilst prioritising public safety. When an application was received it went through a series of checks which could be a lengthy process as the Council needed to rely on other information and intelligence from other agencies e.g if the driver was already licensed in another local authority area. However, the service area had looked at streamlining the process through their digital systems.

·       In reference to the fee costs, the Head of Service reported that a decision had already been made on fees by the Committee and currently the driver licence fees was £303 (every 3 years).

·       A question was asked how the Council found out about prosecutions such as speeding fines after a licence had been granted. The Principal Licensing Officer reported that this was a challenging aspect and that it was difficult to monitor prosecutions during the course of a licence period. However, DVLA checks were undertaken on renewal and if a prosecution or other offence was discovered this may be grounds to refuse the licence. Reports could also be made by members of the public, police and other drivers.

·       There was typo in paragraph 2.18, the number of categorised complaints is less than the total number.  The total number of complaints received should read 54, not 56. 

·       A Member expressed concern that some drivers might submit applications which were likely to be refused because they had for example not disclosed a speeding fine. This would waste officers time, could be vexatious and in addition the fee would need to be refunded. The Head of Service reported that every application had to be looked at on its merits, for example a previous conviction may no longer be relevant as it was spent.   Another Member suggested that this issue could be referred to the Local Government Association Licensing Committee with the view to lobby Government to change the law so the fee for failed applications could be retained.

·       A Member questioned the fee levels that had been set for taxi licensing by the Committee the pervious year with the new policy whether the Council was operating at a surplus or a deficit. In addition with the 605 vehicles which were suspended whether there was any geographical areas which were significantly worse than others. A final question was asked about the level of evidence required to obtain a prosecution against a driver or operator. In response the Head of Service reported that in terms of income and expenditure it was too early to tell at this moment in time and a report would be submitted to Members at the end of the financial year. Any remaining legacy reserves had been utilised at the end of the financial year (as had been advised would be the case) so for this financial year the service area had started afresh. Budgets currently seemed in line with what was expected and were so far relatively steady, however because licences were renewed at different points throughout the year it was difficult to obtain a totally clear picture e.g. Wycombe had peak applications times in March and October. A Member asked for a breakdown in each area on whether the Council was cost neutral as this would provide useful information on whether any fees should be reviewed. The Head of Service reported that with applications that were renewed 3 or 5 yearly a longer time period was required for analysis. In terms of suspended vehicles, it was difficult to analyse geographical areas as the Council was now unitary. However, drivers were encouraged to prepare their vehicles before testing. The Service area tries to drive up standards through regular newsletters to the trade. Finally in response to the question on investigations it would be helpful to have the operator name, who should have a detailed record of each of their bookings and the Council would expect to be provided with details on the driver and the vehicle they were driving. The date and time of the incident would also be helpful. Customers should not be deterred from reporting any concerns if they did not have all those details to hand but should provide as much information as they could. The Principal Licensing Officer reported that if any complaints were made they would look at the operator’s records which they were legally obliged to keep. Some customers may not wish to take the complaint further but information was still helpful as it was kept on record and would be considered when the licence was renewed as to whether the driver was fit and proper.

·       A Member suggested that it was important to focus on the majority of taxi drivers who complied with the Policy and provided a good level of service. The Head of Service agreed that the vast majority of drivers did comply and that enforcement activity was focused on the minority. During the pandemic some other local authorities had arranged a reward scheme for drivers around Covid cleanliness of vehicles, however as Buckinghamshire was such a large authority this would be difficult to administer. The Service area would like to consider similar reward and recognition initiatives in the future. They were currently looking at an Operator Engagement Programme to ensure a direct line of communication between Operators and the Service.

·       A suggestion was made that there should be quarterly reports.

On a vote being taken, the recommendation being proposed by Cllr Green, seconded by Cllr Towns it was:-

RESOLVED that

1. The contents of this report be noted including the matters for inclusion/exclusion in future enforcement update reports.
2. The frequency of reporting on hackney carriage and private hire enforcement activities be quarterly to the Licensing Committee.
3. The Committee note a recommendation from the Head of Service to the Chairman of Committee and Cabinet Member that the officer panel step be removed from the decision-making process by way of a minor amendment to the Policy.