NOT ‘FIT AND PROPER’: Stockton-on-Tees refuses three taxi and PHV driver applications following serious conduct concerns
- Perry Richardson
- Aug 6
- 4 min read
Three separate applications for taxi driver licences were refused by the General Licensing Committee during its February 2025 committee meeting. The decisions followed lengthy deliberation into the applicants’ previous conduct, compliance history and suitability to hold a position of trust transporting members of the public.
The Committee considered each case under the requirements of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and the council’s Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Licensing Policy 2021–2026. In each case, members were unanimous that the individuals did not meet the standard of being ‘fit and proper’ to hold a licence.
The first applicant had previously held a private hire driver licence with Middlesbrough Council for only eleven weeks in 2024 before it was revoked. The applicant reapplied for a licence in Stockton-on-Tees but failed to disclose his previous revocation, which came to light via a search of the National Register of Revocations, Refusals and Suspensions (NR3S). The revocation stemmed from a report made to Middlesbrough Council by a hospital employee, who witnessed the applicant exposing himself in public and engaging in behaviour interpreted as a sex act.
During interviews, the applicant denied the claim and stated that he suffered from a medical condition that caused discomfort and required him to “break bobbles” on his skin. He said this may have been misinterpreted. However, no medical documentation was provided to support this assertion. Despite the applicant’s request to withdraw the application citing personal reasons, the Committee proceeded with the case so that the refusal could be formally recorded on NR3S.
Members noted the unacceptable nature of the incident, whether it involved a sexual act or medical discomfort, and expressed concern at the applicant’s apparent minimisation of the seriousness of his actions. They also highlighted his failure to disclose relevant information and a lack of medical evidence. The application was refused.
The second applicant was previously licensed by the council between 2018 and 2024. His application to renew his private hire licence was brought before the Committee due to unresolved complaints, non-compliance with licensing processes, and a refusal to take a drugs test.
A key concern was a complaint made in October 2023, where a member of the public reported the applicant behaving suspiciously near her home. She stated the applicant had approached her property multiple times, asked workers personal questions about the residents, and opened her door uninvited. The applicant claimed he was interested in buying the house, admitting his behaviour was “very odd”.
The Committee also reviewed two earlier complaints, one relating to refusing a fare in 2020 and another for failing to report accident damage in 2023. In addition, the applicant failed to attend three scheduled interviews regarding the stalking complaint and only engaged with licensing officers after his licence expired. When interviewed about the latest application, he initially agreed to take a saliva drug test but then declined, stating he would return later. He never did.
In light of the repeated failure to comply with requests, inconsistent conduct, and the unresolved nature of the public complaints, members decided he could not be regarded as a reliable or suitable person to hold a licence. The application was refused.
The third application came from a driver who previously held a combined hackney carriage and private hire licence, which was revoked in July 2024 following three serious complaints. These included a hit-and-run collision captured on CCTV, intimidation of a member of the public who challenged him for littering, and CCTV footage showing his vehicle involved in drug-related activity.
During the investigation, the applicant provided inconsistent explanations and was found to have attempted to cover for his son, who he claimed had taken his vehicle without permission. Licensing officers noted conflicting accounts and suspected dishonesty. The Committee’s previous decision to revoke the licence took into account these concerns and the applicant’s history of repeated warnings and disciplinary action dating back to 2004.
At the February 2025 hearing, the applicant sought to regain his licence and provided character references, including one from a councillor. He apologised for trying to protect his son and explained that his personal circumstances at the time were difficult, including his partner’s illness. He stated that his vehicle was now secure and that his son was no longer involved with criminal activity.
However, the Committee found that the applicant had downplayed the seriousness of his conduct and failed to show genuine insight or remorse. They pointed to multiple previous incidents, including past convictions, repeated use of a mobile phone while driving, and earlier licensing breaches. Members concluded that his history showed a persistent disregard for licensing rules and professional standards. The application was refused.
In all three cases, the Committee stated that the overriding consideration was the safety of the travelling public. Members consistently referenced case law confirming that licences must only be granted where there is confidence that the applicant is honest, reliable, and would not abuse their position.
The Committee also confirmed that financial hardship, family responsibilities or past employment history cannot be factors in determining applications. In each case, the applicants had referred to personal or financial impacts of a refusal, but members noted that licensing is a protective regime, not a welfare mechanism.
