The Team Manager – Licensing presented a report, the purpose of which, was to ask the Sub-Committee to determine an application to grant a licence for a private hire vehicle. She confirmed that the application fell outside the age policy guidelines adopted by the Licensing Committee (for the reasons contained within the report).

She advised that an application had been made by Robin Leigh of Bridgend to licence an Audi A6 vehicle registration number UIG 7568 as a private hire vehicle to seat 4 persons.

The vehicle was pre-owned, was first registered at the DVLA on 29 September 2011 and the above is a private number plate. The V5 Registration document, confirmed that Mr Leigh acquired the vehicle on 2 March 2021. He had been made aware of the age policy guidelines in place for the grant of vehicle licences and wished to pursue the application.

The vehicle falls outside of the age policy guidelines for first licensing of vehicles, as set out in paragraph 4.5 of the report and did not fall into the category of a minibus wheelchair accessible fitted with a tail lift.

Mr Leigh had submitted supporting documentation which was attached at Appendix A to the report. The last MOT Certificate issued was attached at Appendix B.

In terms of the Licensing Policy guidelines, the following policy extract was approved by the Licensing Committee on 17 November 2020 and came into effect on 1 February 2021. This followed a request from the trade to relax the previous age policy guidelines.

“From 1 February 2021, vehicles submitted for licensing for the first time must be less than 5 years old from the date of first registration; or first use/date of manufacture if the vehicle is imported, with the exception of minibus type   vehicles fitted with permanent automated tail lifts which may be aged up to 10 years on first licensing.”

The Council’s licensing page also included the following advice:-

‘If you are in any doubt about whether a vehicle falls within policy guidelines please email us for advice before you make a financial commitment.’

The policy guidelines applied equally to both hackney carriage and private hire vehicles. 

The Team Manager – Licensing advised the Sub-Committee, that the vehicle subject of the application was almost 10 years old and therefore fell outside of the policy guidelines detailed above.

Mr. Leigh in support of his application, advised Members that the reason he bought the vehicle to licence as a Private Hire Vehicle, was due to the fact that notwithstanding its age, it was in excellent condition and had a full Audi service history. It had one mark on the wheels when he purchased it, so he decided to have all the wheels on the car then re-conditioned. Mr. Leigh asked the Sub-Committee if they had seen photographs of the vehicle, in order for them to see the supreme condition it was in.

The Chairperson on behalf of Members, advised that the Sub-Committee had not been provided with photographs of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 282

The Assistant Chief Executive - Legal and Regulatory Services submitted a report regarding an application by Mr Paul A Brain to licence a Ford Transit Tourneo vehicle, registration number M6 PEY as a Private Hire wheelchair accessible vehicle to seat eight persons. 

            The Sub-Committee inspected the vehicle and confirmed the mileage as being 98,618 miles.

            The Licensing and Registration Officer informed the Sub-Committee that the vehicle is pre-owned and was first registered at the DVLA on the 23^rd May 2007.  The applicant had provided a service history with the application, which had fallen outside the Policy Guidelines for the first licensing of vehicles and would normally be refused; however a relaxation of the Policy may be considered in exceptional circumstances.  She asked Mr Brain to explain why the application had been submitted late.

            Mr Brain explained that due to an administrative oversight by his department, his office submitted the application by e-mail at 5.30pm on a Friday, after the Council offices had closed for the day.  Mr Brain claimed that the licence was not due to expire until midnight on that day, and he therefore believed that this was a grey area as to whether the licence had expired before he submitted his application.  Mr Brain informed the Sub-Committee that he had not been aware that he would be required to attend this meeting until this morning, as he had not received his post, which was the second occasion this had happened.  He commented that in over 20 years of his dealings with the Licensing Section, it was only during the last three months that he had encountered a problem with receiving his mail from them.

            The Licensing and Registration Officer explained that all applicants are fully informed of the procedure at least two weeks before the expiry date and there was no provision to keep a licence in force, as it was considered the responsibility of the applicants to manage that process.  She added that if Mr Brain had notified the Licensing Section in advance, perhaps they could have made provision to wait for him on that Friday evening if they had the resources.  She therefore maintained that Mr Brain had knowingly submitted the application after the Council Offices were closed and that there would be no means of him being able to make a payment for his application until the following Monday.  She therefore contended that the application had been made after the expiry date. 

            With regard to Mr Brain having not received notification of the meeting by post, she advised that as a result of this information, the Licensing Section had conducted a test mail and it was found that his notification was sent out in the same mail run as the report sent to Members of the Sub-Committee.

            The Sub-Committee questioned Mr Brain as to why he had an axe in the vehicle, which they had found whilst inspecting it.  They questioned Mr Brain with regard to a clip which was missing from the rear  ...  view the full minutes text for item 399