Three Bolton private hire drivers face refusal, revocation and suspension after licensing committee rulings
- Perry Richardson
- Jul 28
- 2 min read
A Bolton Council licensing committee refused one new private hire driver application, revoked another driver’s licence and suspended a third for eight weeks following separate hearings into driving offences and licence condition breaches.
Three separate private hire licensing cases resulted in significant regulatory action after a Licensing and Environmental Regulation Committee meeting held on 7 July 2026, with councillors concluding that each case raised concerns over whether the individuals remained fit and proper to hold, or be granted, a private hire driver’s licence.
The first case involved an application for a new private hire driver’s licence. Members unanimously refused the application after considering a conviction for driving without due care and attention dated 1 January 2026.
Under the council’s Statement of Fitness and Suitability, the offence is categorised as an intermediate offence, with convictions less than two years old generally leading to refusal. The committee concluded there was reasonable cause to refuse the application because the applicant was not considered a fit and proper person at this time.
In a second hearing, councillors considered allegations of misconduct against an existing licensed private hire driver. The committee unanimously agreed to revoke the driver’s licence after examining a conviction from 10 April 2026 for failing to provide information as to the identity of a driver, commonly recorded as an MS90 offence. Members also found the driver had breached licence conditions by failing to notify the licensing authority of the conviction within the required timescale and noted this had happened previously.
During debate on that case, some councillors proposed that the revocation should take immediate effect on public safety grounds, arguing the driver’s actions involved dishonesty and a serious failure to disclose information.
However, legal advice given during the meeting stated that an MS90 offence is not a dishonesty offence in itself but is classified as a major motoring offence. The amendment was defeated before members unanimously voted to revoke the licence under the council’s fitness and suitability policy.
A third hearing centred on another licensed private hire driver who had been convicted of driving without due care and attention on 12 April 2026. Councillors also considered the driver’s failure to declare the conviction within the required period, alongside previous failures to comply with the same licence condition. An amendment seeking immediate revocation on public safety grounds cited the driver’s motorway conduct, an admission relating to an earlier incident involving a pedestrian’s foot, and previous complaints. However, the committee rejected the amendment.
Instead, members unanimously agreed to suspend the driver’s private hire licence for eight weeks. The suspension is accompanied by a requirement for the driver to complete safeguarding training and receive advice regarding motorway behaviour. The committee took no action against the driver’s vehicle licence.
The decisions highlight how licensing committees continue to apply local fitness and suitability policies when assessing both motoring convictions and compliance with licence conditions. While driving offences formed the basis of each case, repeated failures to notify the licensing authority of convictions within the required timescales also featured prominently in the committee’s reasoning.
