.jpg)
Private hire driver KEEPS licence despite previous revocation over sexual contact with vulnerable passenger
A Fareham private hire driver has been allowed to retain his licence despite failing to declare that a previous licence had been revoked following sexual contact with a vulnerable passenger.
A private hire driver who previously had his licence revoked by Havant Borough Council following sexual contact with a vulnerable passenger has been allowed to continue working after a licensing panel ruled that he remained a fit and proper person.
The decision was made by Fareham Borough Council’s Licensing Panel, after members examined concerns surrounding the driver’s previous conduct and his failure to disclose his earlier licensing history.
The driver, identified in the published minutes only as Mr S, had held a private hire driver’s licence with Fareham Borough Council since 2019.
However, the panel heard that he had failed to declare that he previously held a licence with neighbouring Havant Borough Council, which had been suspended and subsequently revoked because of his behaviour. According to the council’s minutes, that behaviour included sexual contact with a vulnerable passenger.
Mr S attended the hearing and provided an explanation for both the previous incident and the information missing from his 2019 application.
He told councillors that he had disclosed an allegation of sexual assault when applying to Fareham Borough Council seven years earlier, including details within his pre-application paperwork.
Mr S maintained that he had not deliberately attempted to conceal his previous licence or the circumstances surrounding its revocation. He said he had discussed the matter with licensing officers at the time and believed his Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) record contained information about the allegation and his previous status as a private hire driver.
However, he could not recall completing the original application form and suggested he may have misunderstood or failed to read properly the question asking about previous licences.
Addressing the incident that led to Havant Borough Council revoking his licence, Mr S expressed regret and acknowledged that his actions were a mistake.
The published minutes stated: “He asserted that the contact was consensual but he knows now he should not have let it happen.”
The minutes do not establish whether the allegation resulted in criminal proceedings or a conviction. The panel considered the previous licensing action and Mr S’s account when assessing whether he should remain licensed.
Councillors were also told that Mr S had worked as a private hire driver licensed by Fareham Borough Council since 2019 without any recorded concerns or complaints.
The panel noted that he would have undertaken recent and regular safeguarding training during that period.
Members considered guidance from the Institute of Licensing concerning inappropriate driver behaviour, particularly conduct involving vulnerable passengers.
The guidance identifies inappropriate physical contact, intrusive personal questions and other unsuitable interactions as behaviours requiring licensing intervention, even where they fall short of criminal conduct.
It also states that drivers should generally receive warnings and, where appropriate, additional safeguarding training for less serious first incidents. Repeated behaviour considered predatory can justify refusing a licence.
After examining the available evidence, including Mr S’s explanation and the absence of relevant Fareham Borough Council records, the panel concluded that his conduct had not been demonstrated to be predatory or repeated.
The decision stated: “The panel, having considered the evidence available including Mr S’s own account, and the lack of Fareham Borough Council records, do not consider Mr S to have demonstrated behaviour that is predatory or repeated.”
Members nevertheless expressed concern about the accuracy of his original licensing application.
The panel acknowledged that remembering the details of a form completed seven years earlier could be difficult, but said applicants were responsible for ensuring they provided accurate information to licensing authorities.
The minutes stated: “However, the panel are concerned about him not answering a simple question accurately. It is important that Mr S takes responsibility for ensuring accurate information is provided to the Council at all times.”
Councillors also accepted that Mr S had not attempted to conceal the sexual assault allegation itself. They noted that, without licensing records contradicting his recollection that relevant information was available through his DBS disclosure, there appeared to have been an opportunity for officers to investigate the circumstances further in 2019.
Ultimately, the panel decided that no action should be taken against his existing private hire driver’s licence.
However, members warned that any future concerns involving his behaviour towards passengers would bring the previous incident back into consideration.
The decision stated: “However, should any concerns be raised regarding Mr S’s behaviour towards passengers in the future, this information will become relevant and be considered.”
Mr S was also formally warned to provide accurate and timely information to Fareham Borough Council.
Under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, licensing authorities must assess whether individuals are fit and proper to hold taxi or private hire driving licences. Previous licensing decisions, allegations involving passenger safety and the accuracy of information supplied by applicants can all form part of that assessment.
The meeting also considered a separate application involving a driver identified as Mr E, who had been unable to obtain a certificate of good conduct from Afghanistan after fleeing the country for political reasons.
Councillors approved that application after considering his circumstances, including his residence in the UK since 2014, his arrival before the age of 18 and the absence of records on his DBS and DVLA checks.
Two further cases were listed. One was referred for determination under delegated authority, while another was not heard because the applicant failed to attend.
