TfL-licensed private hire driver GRANTED new licence in different area despite previous revocation for plying-for-hire offence
- Perry Richardson
- 6 minutes ago
- 2 min read
Licensing panel finds applicant remains a fit and proper person after considering seven-year-old offences and current Transport for London licence
A private hire driver’s licence application has been approved despite the applicant previously having a taxi licence revoked following convictions for plying for hire and a related insurance offence. Members of a licensing panel concluded the applicant, referred to as Mr G, remained a fit and proper person to hold a licence after considering the circumstances surrounding the offences and his subsequent licensing record.
The decision was made at a Fareham Council Licensing Panel hearing on 9 June 2026, where councillors reviewed Mr G’s application alongside details of a previous licence revocation by Aylesbury Vale District Council in July 2019. The panel also examined the circumstances surrounding offences committed on 3 November 2018.
During the hearing, Mr G explained that the offences occurred shortly after he first entered the private hire industry. According to the panel’s findings, he accepted responsibility for collecting a passenger without a pre-booking and told members that, as a newly licensed driver at the time, he misunderstood the legal requirements governing pre-booked journeys.
The panel heard that Mr G’s licence was subsequently revoked, but that he later returned to the trade and currently holds a private hire driver’s licence issued by Transport for London. Members noted there had been no reported concerns regarding his conduct while licensed by TfL.
Councillors also considered an issue relating to non-disclosure on the application form. Mr G told the panel this arose from a genuine misunderstanding rather than any deliberate attempt to withhold information. Members noted that he had disclosed the previous revocation from Aylesbury Vale District Council, which they considered supported his explanation.
Under the council’s adopted Institute of Licensing guidance, insurance-related offences would normally require a period of around seven years before a licence could be granted. The panel acknowledged that this period had almost elapsed and determined that exceptional circumstances existed to justify departing from policy. Among the factors cited were the proximity to the seven-year threshold, Mr G’s current TfL licence and the absence of any subsequent concerns about his conduct.
After reviewing all the evidence, the panel concluded that Mr G met the fit and proper person test required under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and approved the application.
The case highlights the balancing act licensing authorities face when assessing historic offences. While local policies provide clear guidance on conviction periods, panels retain discretion to depart from those guidelines where exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated and where evidence suggests an applicant no longer presents a risk to public safety or confidence in the licensed trade.
