.jpg)
Bolton Council private hire driver refused licence after mobile phone driving conviction and failure to declare offence
A private hire driver has been refused a licence after Bolton councillors ruled that a previous motoring conviction involving mobile phone regulations, combined with a failure to declare the offence, meant he was not a fit and proper person.
The decision was made at a Bolton Council Licensing and Environmental Regulation Committee meeting on 28 July 2026, following consideration of an application to drive a private hire vehicle.
According to the committee minutes, the applicant had been convicted on 24 April 2025 of an offence described as a breach of requirements relating to the control of a vehicle, mobile phones and associated matters.
The offence was classified as a major traffic offence under the council’s Statement of Fitness and Suitability. Under that policy, a conviction within the previous three years would generally result in a private hire driver licence application being refused.
Councillors also considered the applicant’s failure to declare the conviction in accordance with the conditions of his licence. This formed a separate reason for concern when determining whether he met the standards expected of a licensed private hire driver.
The applicant attended the committee hearing accompanied by a representative. Councillor Donaghy proposed that the application be refused, with the motion seconded by Councillor Galloway.
The proposal received unanimous support from the 12 councillors present. There were no votes against the refusal and no abstentions.
The committee formally resolved to refuse the application because members considered that the applicant was not a fit and proper person at that time.
The decision demonstrates how motoring convictions and compliance with licence conditions can both affect a driver’s ability to obtain private hire licensing approval.
Although the conviction was described in the minutes as relating to vehicle control and mobile phones, the published record does not provide further details of the circumstances of the offence or establish precisely how a mobile phone was involved.
The minutes also do not identify the applicant or specify whether any further appeal against the licensing decision was pursued.
