The Corporate Director Operational and Partnership Services submitted a report, which asked the Sub-Committee to consider an application to grant a licence for a Hackney Carriage Vehicle.

The Team Manager Licensing advised that an application was being made by Paul Brain t/a Peyton Travel Ltd, to licence a Dacia Logan vehicle registration number FG15 XBP as a Hackney Carriage Vehicle to seat 4 persons. The vehicle was pre-owned and was first registered at the DVLA on 17 April 2015.

The application falls outside the Hackney Carriage Vehicle Policy approved by the Licensing Committee. The vehicle was not wheelchair accessible, though there were specific policy guidelines in respect of the first licensing of Hackney Carriage Vehicles that fell outside policy guidelines, as was detailed in paragraph 4.4 of the report.

Members then proceeded to inspect the vehicle which was situate in the Civic Offices basement car park.

Upon the meeting reconvening the Team Manager Licensing advised that the current mileage of the vehicle was 24,380.

She then asked Mr. Griffiths, who attended the meeting on behalf of Mr. Brain, to give some history regarding the vehicle for the benefit of Members.

He advised that Mr. Brain had purchased the vehicle privately and that it had one previous owner. He confirmed that there was low mileage on the vehicle, and that he had purchased the vehicle for a competitive price, and that his intention was to then change the vehicle sooner rather than later, and to buy a slightly newer one in its place. This means of purchase/selling methodology, would not result in such a financial commitment in terms of an outgoing for the vehicle including loss for its re-sale.

The Team Manager Licensing asked Mr. Griffiths where the vehicle had been during the last 6 months, i.e. from date of purchase to the date of application.

Mr. Griffiths advised that Mr. Brain’s mother had been using the vehicle within this time.

A Member noted that there was damage to the vehicle shown at its front end.

Mr. Griffiths advised that the vehicle had not been in an accident and that this type of model had bolted on panels at its front sides, which could sometimes give the impression that both sides were out in terms of their alignment. This was due to the way the car was manufactured/constructed.

She asked Mr. Griffiths if Mr. Brain was aware of the fact that the policy guidelines stated that ordinarily the first licensing of Hackney Carriage Vehicles was in respect of new rather than second hand vehicles.

Mr. Griffiths confirmed that he did not know whether or not Mr. Brain was aware of this policy provision.

A Member further noted following inspection of the vehicle, that the bonnet was out of line and that the wing had been sprayed.

Mr. Griffiths reiterated that the vehicle had been checked at auction by Mr. Brain, and this had revealed that it had not incurred any significant previous damage such as through a road accident.

Members then retired to consider the application further, and on their return, it was

RESOLVED:                   The Sub-Committee considered the application made by Mr. Brain to licence FG15 XBP as a Hackney Carriage Vehicle.  Given that this is an application for the first licensing of the vehicle, the Sub-Committee noted that the application for first licensing must be made within 14 days of registration and with less than 500 miles.  This vehicle was far in excess of this age and mileage.

                                         Under paragraph 2.2 of the Licensing Policy, applications falling outside the policy will normally be refused, and a relaxation of the policy will only be considered in exceptional circumstances. Guidelines as to what these exceptions are could be found at paragraph 2.2.1 of the same, and a relaxation of the policy in respect of hackney carriages is likely to relate only to evidence delay in the DVLA registration process or minor variations in delivery mileage.

                                         The Sub-Committee also heard the explanation regarding the vehicle and that Mr. Griffiths had informed the Sub-Committee that the damage to the vehicle was not caused since it had been in Mr. Brain’s ownership.

                                         However, the Sub-Committee is concerned by the damage which has been caused to the vehicle and about its age and mileage.  Furthermore, the Sub- Committee did not consider that the situation falls within the exception allowed in paragraph 2.2.1 of the policy which sets out the guidelines for relaxation. As such, the Sub-Committee is unable to relax its policy in the current case and therefore refused application for licence.