Licensing Committee Minutes

Licensing Committee Minutes

Date:
Monday 3 October 2016
Time:
1:00 p.m.
Place:
Mandela Room, Town Hall, Middlesbrough
 

Attendance Details

Present:
Councillor B E Taylor (Chair), Councillor J A Walker (Vice Chair); Councillor R Arundale, Councillor R Brady, Councillor D J Branson, Councillor S Dean, Councillor J Goodchild, Councillor T Higgins, Councillor L Lewis, Councillor T Mawston and Councillor D McCabe.
Officers:
C Cunningham, J Dixon and T Hodgkinson.
Apologies for absence:
Councillor S Biswas.
Declarations of interest:

There were no Declarations of Interest made by Members at this point in the meeting.

Item Number Item/Resolution
PUBLIC
16/40 MINUTES - LICENSING COMMITTEE - 5 SEPTEMBER 2016

The Minutes of the previous Licensing Committee held on 5 September 2016 were submitted and approved as a correct record.

16/41 EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC.

ORDERED that the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items on the grounds that, if present, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.

EXEMPT
16/42 REVIEW OF PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE DRIVER LICENCE - REF: 21/16

The Assistant Director of Improving Public Health submitted an exempt report in connection with the review of a Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref: 22/16, where circumstances had arisen which required special consideration by the Committee.

 

The case related to an incident that had occurred on 16 February 2016 and subsequent complaint made against the driver on 2 March 2016 from the mother of a 14-year-old female. Members were informed that the female witness, accompanied by her mother, had confirmed that she would be in attendance at Committee. In light of a vulnerable witness attending Committee, a screen partition was put in place and the driver was invited to join the meeting first so that there was no contact between the driver and the witness.

 

The Principal Licensing Officer advised that the driver would be accompanied by an interpreter and confirmed that the driver was able to speak and understand English but had difficulty with some areas of the language.

 

The driver joined the meeting, accompanied by his interpreter. The Chair introduced those present and outlined the procedure to be followed. The driver verified his name and address and confirmed that he had received a copy of the report.

 

The Principal Licensing Officer presented the report setting out the circumstances of the case as detailed in the submitted report.

 

The driver was first licensed by Middlesbrough Council in September 2015 and now appeared before Members in relation to a complaint received from the mother of a 14-year-old female who had been travelling alone as a passenger in the driver’s vehicle on 16 February 2016. The complaint alleged that the driver had behaved inappropriately. A statement obtained from the 14-year-old female was attached at Appendix 1. The driver was invited for interview with a Licensing Officer on 11 March 2016, however, the Officer was not satisfied that the driver fully understood what was being said to him and the Officer also had difficulty in understanding the driver. The interview was suspended and arrangements were made for an interpreter to be present during the next interview which took place on 24 March 2016. The driver denied the allegation and a copy of his interview was attached at Appendix 2.

 

The driver was interviewed by the Senior Licensing Officer on 5 April 2016 and confirmed that there were no outstanding matters of which the Council was unaware and confirmed his previous explanation regarding the complaint and had nothing further to add.

 

The witness, accompanied by her mother, joined the meeting. The Chair introduced those present and explained the procedure to be followed.

 

The witness confirmed her name and the content of her statement, attached at Appendix 1. The Chair invited the witness to explain, in her own words, what had happened in relation to the incident on 16 February 2016. The witness provided her version of events and responded to questions from Members.

 

It was confirmed that the driver had no questions for the witness and the witness and her mother withdrew from the meeting.

 

The driver was asked to provide his version of events in relation to the incident, which he did via his interpreter. The driver responded to questions from Members, the Council’s legal representative and Principal Licensing Officer, via his interpreter.

 

It was confirmed that there were no further questions and the driver, his interpreter, and officers of the Council, other than representatives of the Council’s Legal Services and Democratic Services, withdrew whilst the Committee determined the review.

 

During the course of discussion, Members highlighted that they wished to establish the price of a fare from the passenger’s pick-up address to her intended destination and also the price of a fare from the passenger’s pick-up address to the destination she was taken to by the driver. Subsequently all interested parties were invited back into the meeting to explain the position and to request the Principal Licensing Officer to make the necessary enquiries.

 

All interested parties withdrew from the meeting again and the Principal Licensing Officer returned to provide the requested information before again withdrawing from the meeting whilst the Committee determined the review.

It was confirmed that the cost of the fare from the passenger’s pick-up point to her home address in Spencerbeck was £5.00 and the cost of the fare from the pick-up point to Stewart Park was £4.20.

 

Subsequently all interested parties returned and the Chair announced the Committee’s decision.

 

ORDERED that Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref 21/16, be revoked under Section 61(1)(b) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 as the Committee did not consider the driver to be a fit and proper person to drive Private Hire Vehicles for the following reasons:-

  1. The Committee had heard two conflicting versions of events. The complainant explained that she had told the driver, when she got into the vehicle, her destination to her home address in Spencerbeck and that she paid the driver the fare during the beginning of the journey. The driver had then pulled up at Stewart Park and after protesting to the driver to be taken to her to her home address, he told her to leave the vehicle. The witness then had to walk the rest of the distance home. The witness also stated that the driver had asked her questions about her age and who lived at the address, to which she did not reply. In contrast, the driver informed Committee that when he picked up the passenger, she had told him to take her to Stewart Park and he did not speak to her until he reached Stewart Park and requested the fare. The driver then stated that the complainant had paid the fare (being £4.20 which the Committee noted was the correct fare to Stewart Park) and left the vehicle.
  2. The complainant informed the Committee that the journey she had undertaken was one that she had taken on a regular basis in the past, from her grandmother’s house to her home address, and that her grandmother gave her a five pound note for the journey. The Committee considered it unlikely that the complainant would ask to be dropped off at Stewart Park, which was some distance from Spencerbeck, only to have to walk the rest of the distance. The Committee considered it was also unlikely that when the driver stopped the car the complainant simply paid and left the vehicle without protest or at least asking him to take her to her home address (in view that this was some distance from Stewart Park and was a journey she had taken on a regular basis). The complainant confirmed this in her statement and to Members at Committee. It was also confirmed at Committee that later that day (16 February 2016), the driver’s operator informed him that he had made a mistake in dropping her off at Stewart Park, following a complaint that same day from the complainant’s mother. The driver admitted to the Committee that he did not know where Spencerbeck was which added to the Committee’s concerns that he had not known where to take the passenger. The Committee, therefore, on balance, based on the information before it, did not believe the driver’s version of events that the Complainant asked to go to Stewart Park, paid the fare and left the vehicle without objection. 
  3. The Committee saw no reason why the complainant should make a statement, find the time with her mother to attend a Committee hearing to be questioned by Members and potentially the driver and his representative, which it was reasonable to assume would be a stressful situation for any minor, only in order to lie about requesting to be dropped off at her home address.
  4. The complainant was a young girl travelling alone and the Committee considered it was reasonable to assume that a reasonable licensed private hire driver would recognise that she was in a vulnerable position but the driver had failed to recognise this. Dropping a vulnerable passenger at a park, being the wrong destination and not taking her home as requested was wholly inappropriate behaviour for a taxi driver in Middlesbrough.
  5. The Committee also considered it was difficult to believe that the driver could have simply been mistaken by thinking 'Stewart Park' was the destination, because the complainant, in her statement, stated she asked to go to her home address which the Committee considered would involve providing a road name and location - ie Spencerbeck. Even if it was a mistake, which the Committee did not consider to be the case based on the information above, when the driver reached Stewart Park he failed to recognise that it was not the requested destination nor did he act appropriately after the child passenger asked him to take her home to Spencerbeck. Again this was wholly unacceptable for a taxi driver in Middlesbrough.
  6. The driver had only been licensed for a short period, since September 2015, and it was, therefore, not long since he had passed his knowledge test and received all the information explaining the standards Middlesbrough Council expects of its drivers. To receive such a serious complaint from a vulnerable child passenger at any time of the life of a licence, but more so during such a short period from the grant of your licence, was unacceptable.
  7. Members were also concerned that the driver did not know the local area, although they accepted that a taxi driver was not required to know specific areas in detail, they did expect drivers to have knowledge in relation to the general location of areas of the town, for example, Spencerbeck.

The driver was reminded of his Right of Appeal to the Magistrates Court within 21 days of the date of the decision.
 

16/43 REVIEW OF COMBINED HACKNEY CARRIAGE / PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE DRIVER LICENCE - REF: 37/16

The Assistant Director of Improving Public Health submitted an exempt report in connection with the review of Combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref: 37/16, which required special consideration by the Committee.

 

The Principal Licensing Officer advised Members that the witness in relation to the case, was unable to attend the meeting today. Subsequently, the driver had been advised not to attend today’s meeting and the Committee was asked to consider deferring the matter to the next meeting to afford a further opportunity for the witness, and driver, to attend.

 

ORDERED that consideration of the review of Combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Vehicle Driver licence, Ref 37/16, be deferred to the next meeting of the Licensing Committee in order to allow a further opportunity for the witness, and driver, to attend.
 

16/44 REVIEW OF COMBINED HACKNEY CARRIAGE / PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE DRIVER LICENCE - REF: 36/16

The Assistant Director of Improving Public Health submitted an exempt report in connection with the review of a Combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref: 36/16, where circumstances had arisen which required special consideration by the Committee.

 

The Chair introduced those present and outlined the procedure to be followed. The driver, who was in attendance at the meeting, verified his name and address and confirmed that he had received a copy of the report.

 

The Principal Licensing Officer presented the report setting out the circumstances of the case as detailed in the submitted report.

 

Members were reminded that the applicant had been due to appear before them at their meeting on 5 September 2016 in relation to offences 1) and 2) but had failed to attend, without explanation. Members deferred consideration of the matter to the next Licensing Committee but asked that the driver be advised the matter would be heard in his absence should he again fail to attend.

 

The driver was first licensed by Middlesbrough Council in June 2012 and now appeared before Members in relation to the offences outlined at 1) to 3) in the submitted report. The driver was interviewed by a Licensing Enforcement Officer on 23 June 2016 when he confirmed that there were no outstanding matters of which the Council was unaware and offered explanations in relation to the offences at 1) and 2).

 

It was highlighted that on 19 September 2016, the driver notified the Council, in writing, of a further conviction for speeding that he had received on 9 March 2016. The driver had not reported this matter to the Council, in writing, within seven days of conviction, as required by condition on his licence, nor did he mention the conviction to the Licensing Enforcement Officer during his interview on 23 June 2016. Officers had been unable to obtain the circumstances surrounding this conviction.

 

The driver confirmed that the report was an accurate representation of the facts and confirmed that there were no outstanding matters of which the Council was unaware.

 

The driver addressed the Committee and provided details in relation to offence 3). He also responded to questions from Members, the Council’s legal representative and the Principal Licensing Officer.

 

It was confirmed that there were no further questions and the driver and officers of the Council, other than representatives of the Council’s Legal Services and Democratic Services, withdrew whilst the Committee determined the review.

 

Subsequently all interested parties returned and the Chair announced the Committee’s decision.

 

ORDERED that Combined Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref 36/16, be suspended for a period of three weeks and that the driver be required to completed the Driver Improvement Scheme, at his own expense, within six weeks of the date of the decision. The Committee considered this to be the appropriate course of action for the following reasons:-

  1. The driver had been convicted of three traffic offences, one for having no third party insurance and the other two for speeding. In September 2015 he had nine penalty points on his DVLA licence, however, the Council was not aware that the driver had nine points on his licence at that time as he failed to inform the Council, in writing, of his convictions. As a result of the speeding offence on 9 March 2016, the driver currently had six penalty points remaining on his licence. Therefore, in effect, over the period January 2013 to March 2016 the driver had received 12 points on his licence. The Council’s Policy Guidance to Applicants, Licensed Drivers and Members of the Licensing Committee stated that where a driver had nine or more points on their licence and/or had a history of poor driving, a current licensed driver would be expected to complete a driver improvement course, at their own expense. The Committee considered, in order to improve safety and in light of his convictions and points on his licence, (albeit there were currently six points on his licence), the driver should be required to complete the driver improvement scheme.
  2. The driver had failed to report his three convictions, in writing, to the Licensing Section within seven days from the date of conviction which was a requirement by way of a condition on his licence. There was no record of his first conviction being reported and the driver could not recall whether he had reported it or not. In relation to the speeding offence on 15 September 2015, the driver claimed he had telephoned the Licensing Section at the end of September 2015 as he was ill at the time, however, there was no record of this telephone conversation and no further written confirmation was received from the driver. The driver was convicted of the third offence on 9 March 2016, however, when he was interviewed by a Licensing Enforcement Officer on 23 June 2016 in relation to the first two offences, he failed to declare that he had a further conviction for speeding (9 March 2016). The driver informed the Committee that he had not known about this conviction until September 2016 when he had informed the Council, in writing. The Committee found it difficult to believe that the driver was not aware of both of his speeding convictions which occurred at completely different times and in different areas until quite some time after the convictions, nor did the driver produce any correspondence from the Police or the Courts which he referred to in Committee.
  3. The driver had been a licensed Private Hire driver since June 2012 and obtained a Hackney Carriage badge on 1 June 2015. It was, therefore, reasonable to assume that the driver was aware, or ought to have been aware, of the requirement to inform the Council of any conviction or caution within seven days, in writing. This was to ensure the Council could monitor the suitability of drivers. The Committee considered that the driver had a disregard for the rules and attempted to 'hide' the convictions by not reporting them in the correct manner. Therefore, the Committee decided to suspend his licence for a period of three weeks in order to deter this behaviour in the future.

The driver was reminded of his Right of Appeal to the Magistrates Court within 21 days of the date of the decision.
 

16/45 APPLICATION FOR PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE DRIVER LICENCE - REF: 38/16

The Assistant Director of Improving Public Health submitted an exempt report in connection with an application for a Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref: 38/16, where circumstances had arisen which required special consideration by the Committee.

 

The Chair introduced those present and outlined the procedure to be followed. The applicant, who was in attendance at the meeting, accompanied by his legal representative, verified his name and address and confirmed that he had received a copy of the report.

 

The Principal Licensing Officer presented the report setting out the circumstances of the case in relation to the offences detailed at 1) to 4) in the submitted report.

 

The applicant was interviewed by a Licensing Enforcement Officer on 2 September 2016 when he confirmed that all fines in relation to the offences had been paid in full, that there were no outstanding matters of which the Council was unaware, and offered explanations in relation to the offences at 1) to 4).

 

The applicant had provided a written statement in relation to the offence at 4) and this was attached at Appendix 1.

 

It was highlighted that the applicant had obtained a medical assessment from his GP that met the required Group 2 DVLA Standard for a taxi driver. The applicant’s GP had confirmed his medical fitness but also made a comment on the medical assessment in relation to the applicant’s consumption of alcohol and a period of depression. The GP’s comments were contained within the submitted report.

 

The applicant’s legal representative confirmed that the report was an accurate representation of the facts but highlighted that, at page two of the report, in relation to the first offence of driving with excess alcohol, it referred to the applicant being breathalysed and found to be one unit over the legal limit (36). The legal representative advised that the legal limit was, in fact, 40.

The applicant’s legal representative presented the case in support of the application and the applicant responded to questions from Members and his own legal representative.

 

It was confirmed that there were no further questions and the applicant, his legal representative and officers of the Council, other than representatives of the Council’s Legal Services and Democratic Services, withdrew whilst the Committee determined the application.

 

Subsequently all interested parties returned and the Chair announced the Committee’s decision.

 

ORDERED that the application for a Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref 38/16, be refused as the Committee did not consider the applicant to be a fit and proper person to hold a Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence for the following reasons:-

  1. The Committee considered the report and the representations made by the applicant and his representations, together the with Council’s Policy Guidance on Convictions, Cautions and Complaints. The Committee noted that the applicant had two old convictions for drink driving in 2001 and 2003 and, although the convictions were old, the Committee still took them into consideration in view that they were related to alcohol and the applicant had been convicted of a recent offence of drunk and disorderly in September 2015. The Committee also noted that there had been a doctor’s report that in late 2014 the applicant had suffered from depression and consumed alcohol excessively which led to the applicant requesting and receiving help from specialist alcohol services.
  2. Although the note from the doctor confirmed that by April 2015 the applicant had reduced his alcohol consumption to safe levels, and at the time of the assessment the applicant was not drinking, the applicant confirmed at Committee that he drank responsibly socially. It was to be commended that the applicant had recognised he had an alcohol problem and had sought help, however, the Committee took into consideration the recent offence of drunk and disorderly. Although the applicant claimed he had not been drunk, he had pleaded guilty to the offence of being drunk and disorderly and the Committee could not go behind the conviction.
  3. There was clear evidence that the applicant had an alcohol problem in the past. The Council’s Policy Guidance stated that a history of convictions, cautions and/or complaints regarding drunkenness may indicate a dependency on alcohol and, in such cases, an applicant would normally be refused a licence unless a period of at least five years had elapsed, free from drunken incidents, since his last conviction. Although the applicant might not be dependant on alcohol, he did have a problem with alcohol and after receiving treatment received a further conviction in September 2015 for being drunk and disorderly. The Policy also stated that where an applicant was convicted of more than one drink driving offence, they should expect to have an application refused unless a period of at least 5 to 10 years had lapsed free from drunken incidents since the DVLA Licence was restored. According to his sentence the applicant’s DVLA licence might have been restored on 23 October 2006. The applicant was convicted of a further offence involving alcohol in September 2015 which was within this period.
  4. In view of the previous convictions involving alcohol and his previous problems with alcohol, the Committee considered, at this time, and in accordance with the Council’s Policy, in order to ensure the safety of the travelling public the applicant was not a fit and proper person to drive Private Hire Vehicles in Middlesbrough.

The driver was reminded of his Right of Appeal to the Magistrates Court within 21 days of the date of the decision.

 

** SUSPENSION OF COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULE NO. 15 - DURATION OF MEETING

 

As the meeting had reached its three hour limit, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule No. 15, it was moved, seconded and ORDERED that the length of the meeting be extended in order to deal with the remaining business.
 

16/46 APPLICATION FOR PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE DRIVER LICENCE - REF: 39/16

The Assistant Director of Improving Public Health submitted an exempt report in connection with an application for a Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref: 39/16, where circumstances had arisen which required special consideration by the Committee.


The Chair introduced those present and outlined the procedure to be followed. The applicant, who was in attendance at the meeting, verified his name and address and confirmed that he had received a copy of the report.

 

The Principal Licensing Officer presented the report setting out the circumstances of the case, particularly in relation to the offences detailed at 8) and 12) of 13 offences in the submitted report. The applicant appeared before Committee as a result of the offences detailed in the report and information provided by Stockton Council in relation to an unsuccessful application for a Private Hire Vehicle driver licence with Stockton Council following a failed drugs test. Whilst many of the offences were old, Officers had particular concerns regarding two drug offences (8) and 12)), given the information supplied by Stockton Council.

 

The applicant was interviewed by a Licensing Enforcement Officer on 1 September 2016 when he confirmed that all fines in relation to the offences had been paid in full and that there were no outstanding matters of which the Council was unaware. The applicant offered explanations in relation to the drugs offences at 8) and 12).

 

It was highlighted that, in February 2016, the applicant had made an application for a Private Hire Vehicle driver licence to Stockton Council. Due to the information contained on the applicant’s DBS disclosure regarding the drugs offences, Stockton Council arranged for the applicant to undertake an oral fluid drugs test which tested positive for Opiates, Methamphetamine and Amphetamine. Due to the positive result, Stockton Council arranged a further lab test and, on 9 June 2016, confirmation was received from the Medical Review Officer that the sample was positive and detected 6-acetylmorphine - a breakdown product of heroin.

 

As a result of this information and concerns over the validity of the applicant’s medical examination, Stockton Council determined that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence and a copy of Stockton Council’s decision letter to the applicant was attached at Appendix 1.

 

The Licensing Officer from Stockton Council had provided a written statement for the Committee’s consideration. The statement included detailed information provided by the Medical Review Officer in relation to the result of the drugs test undertaken by the applicant. It was confirmed that the ‘positive’ result related to the detection of illicit drugs (heroin in this case) and that if it had been due to medication, the result would have been 'negative -consistent with medication'.

 

Stockton Council had also expressed concern regarding the validity of the applicant’s medical examination. The applicant had attended a private doctor and had confirmed, when questioned, that he had provided the private doctor with a printout of his medical records from his own GP. The applicant stated he had taken the printout to the private doctor and that the doctor had kept the printout. Subsequent checks with the applicant’s GP surgery revealed that they had no record of printing any medical records for the applicant and could not find a receipt for payment, as described by the applicant. The Stockton Council Licensing Officer made enquiries with the private doctor who confirmed that he requests all examinees to obtain a copy of their medical records and to bring them along to the medical appointment. The copy of the records was required to be no more than two weeks old, stamped by the GP surgery and dated. The private doctor had confirmed that he did not keep a copy of the medical printout as suggested by the applicant.

 

A copy of a file note produced by a Middlesbrough Council Licensing Enforcement Officer, dated 30 September 2016, was circulated to the Panel which provided details of enquiries undertaken by the Officer on 29 September 2016. The statement confirmed that the Officer had contacted the private doctor who confirmed he had conducted a medical for the applicant on 8 June 2016. The doctor also confirmed that the applicant had produced a printout of his medical records.

 

The applicant was asked to authorise his GP surgery to release information regarding him to the Licensing Officer and this was subsequently obtained. The GP surgery confirmed the cost of a medical undertaken by them; that they only released copies of medical records where a formal written request was made by the patient; that they had not received any written request from the applicant for medical records to be realised at any time in 2016 and that none of the applicant’s medical records had been released from the surgery.

 

The applicant confirmed that the report was an accurate representation of the facts and was invited to present the case in support of his application.

The applicant presented the case in support of his application and responded to questions from Members, the Principal Licensing Officer and the Council’s legal representative.

 

It was confirmed that there were no further questions and the applicant and officers of the Council, other than representatives of the Council’s Legal Services and Democratic Services, withdrew whilst the Committee determined the application.

 

Subsequently all interested parties returned and the Chair announced the Committee’s decision.

 

ORDERED that the application for a Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence, Ref 39/16, be refused as the Committee did not consider the applicant to be a fit and proper person to hold a Private Hire Vehicle Driver Licence for the following reasons:-

  1. The applicant had previously applied to Stockton Council, who considered him not to be a fit and proper person to hold a licence. Given the applicant’s history of involvement with illicit drugs, Stockton Council had required the applicant to undertake an oral fluid drugs test which proved positive. On 9 June 2016 confirmation was received form the Medical Review Officer at the laboratory that the sample contained a breakdown of a product that could only be present in an oral fluid sample following Heroin use and nothing else, including the prescribed medication that the applicant was taking at the time of the test. The applicant, up until 2007, had a history of different types of offending - the most relevant being two convictions for drugs. At Committee the applicant explained that the test result was positive due to prescription drugs that he took, however, when questioned, he could not provide any reasons or alternative evidence as to why the test would be positive for illicit drugs and why the positive result was not from any prescribed medication. Therefore, in view of the applicant’s history and the fact that a medical examination proved positive for illicit drugs not related to any prescribed medication and that a neighbouring authority did not consider him a fit and proper person for the same reasons, the Committee did not consider the applicant to be suitable to drive Private Hire Vehicles in Middlesbrough in order to ensure the safety of the travelling public.
  2. In addition, Middlesbrough Council’s Licensing Section had also advised the applicant of the need to authorise his GP’s surgery to release the required medical history to the examining doctor and he confirmed that he had done so. However, upon investigation by a Middlesbrough Council Licensing Officer, the applicant’s GP’s surgery advised it had no record of such a request being made, nor any record of providing such information to the applicant or examining doctor. Similar checks were made by Stockton Council which revealed the GP surgery having no record of supplying the applicant’s medical history. The applicant stated during the meeting that he had collected the medical history summary printout from his GP surgery and taken it to the first examination. He stated he had not made a second request for his medical history as the examining doctor still had a copy of the documents from his previous application through Stockton Council. However, the examining doctor had previously stated that he had not kept a copy of the applicant’s medical records. Neither the applicant nor the examining doctor could produce historical medical records to show they had been supplied by the GP surgery. The Committee, therefore, could not be satisfied that the doctor who had carried out the medical in order to certify he had passed the requisite medical requirements had been provided with the applicant’s medical history records which was a requirement of this authority.

The driver was reminded of his Right of Appeal to the Magistrates Court within 21 days of the date of the decision.

Powered by E-GENDA from Associated Knowledge Systems Ltd