NOT FIT AND PROPER: Bedford Borough rejects two private hire driver licences for stalking and mobile phone usage

Bedford Borough Council’s General Licensing Committee has refused two private hire driver licence applications, following stringent reviews under its current Taxi and Private Hire Licensing Policy.

In the first case, a driver was refused a licence after being convicted for using a mobile phone while driving. The applicant disclosed the offence after submitting a new application. The council’s policy deems using a handheld device while driving a serious offence, automatically disqualifying individuals for five years from the date of the conviction.

The applicant argued that there were mitigating circumstances but had also failed to notify the council of the conviction when it occurred, or during a previous licence renewal. This breach of policy, along with the severity of the motoring offence, led the General Licensing Committee to conclude that the applicant was not a “fit and proper” person to hold a private hire driver licence.

The application was subsequently refused in line with the council’s June 2022 Taxi and Private Hire Policy. The individual has since lodged an appeal with Luton Magistrates' Court.

In the second case, a former applicant was refused a licence due to a 2017 conviction for stalking under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The council’s policy, updated in June 2022, expressly prohibits the licensing of individuals convicted of crimes involving abuse, exploitation, or harassment, considering such offences as a severe breach of the standards required to be a private hire driver.

The applicant’s case was referred to the General Licensing Sub-Committee, which, after reviewing all the details, found no exceptional circumstances to deviate from the council’s policy. The committee reaffirmed its decision that the applicant was not “fit and proper” to hold a licence, noting that stalking is a serious offence that directly contradicts the responsibilities of a private hire driver. Like the other case, the applicant has appealed the decision in court.