Agenda item

At the invitation of the Chair, the Principal Officer (Licensing) Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) presented their report.

Officers informed the Committee that on 17^th October 2022 Members had directed Officers to undertake a consultation with the relevant stakeholders regarding delegating decisions for age criteria applications to WRS Licensing Officers.

The consultation period was conducted between 21^st October 2022 and 16^th December 2022, and was undertaken using an online survey tool. In total 121 responses were received, the replies and other comments received were detailed on pages 97 to 105 of the Public Reports pack.

The results of the consultation were originally due to be considered by the Licensing Committee on 9^th January 2023. However, shortly before that meeting was due to begin, concerns were raised with Officers that some respondents to the survey may have purposefully submitted multiple responses. After an initial inspection, it was decided that further analysis of the responses received was required and with the approval of the Chair the item was deferred.

On further analysis of the responses received, it was identified that of the 122 responses, 82 had come from IP addresses which had submitted multiple responses, with 42 coming from a single IP address. There were further concerns raised regarding the period of time in which the responses were submitted with all the 42 replies from the single IP address being submitted during a 90-minute period.

Officers drew Members’ attention to Appendix 4 on page 107 of the Public Reports pack which detailed to Members where multiple responses were received from a single IP address.

Finally, Officers highlighted that after further discussion with Crossgates Depot, it was confirmed that a member of the safety inspection team would be available to assist with the age criteria extension vehicle examination should Members be minded to delegate the process to Officers.

During the course of a lengthy round of questions from Members, Officers clarified the following points:

• That Local Authorities across the country were evenly split with Officers and Members making decisions with regard to age criteria applications. Officers further highlighted that in the 5 other districts that Worcester Regulatory Services (WRS) covered, Worcester City Council and Wyre Forest District Council (DC) delegated this to Officers, and that Bromsgrove DC, Wychavon DC and Malvern Hills DC retained Member decisions referring applications to Sub-Committee meetings.
• The overall workload impact for Licencing Officers would be negligible, but there could be a time (and therefore cost implication) saving for Officers in the Legal and Democratic Services Departments, although this cost had not been calculated.
• That drivers would have their 6 monthly safety check and age criteria examination on the same day.
• Attempts would be made to alternate the decision-making Officer, in order to ensure one Licensing Officer did not make decisions on all the drivers in the Borough. To facilitate this the eight Licencing Officers employed by WRS would be utilised in rotation.
• The two Principal Licencing Officers would perform regular audits to ensure impartiality and that the process was being followed.
• To mitigate the risk to future consultations, Officers intended to restrict IPs to one submission each. However, it was highlighted that this would not be a fool proof method and that it was still possible for determined individuals to cause undue influence on any future consultations.
• A legal advisor would act in an advisory role for the process to ensure suitability of templates etc. However, they would not have any involvement on a case-by-case basis.
• An appeal against the decision would go to the Magistrates Court and there would be no mechanism for appeals to go before Members.
• If there were issues with the process or impartiality, WRS could then refer these applications to Members of the Sub-Committee on an individual or short-term basis immediately. To permanently return the decision-making process to the Sub-Committee, a further report would have to be presented to the Licencing (Parent) Committee for determination.
• Part of the review process during the Covid-19 pandemic had involved Officers taking pictures of the vehicle in order to support the decision made regarding any application which was not approved, that process would be retained to further support a robust decision-making process with evidence for any refusals in the case of an appeal.
• That the Licensing Officer and mechanic would deliberate and come to a decision together, however, if there was a disagreement, the Licencing Officer would make the final decision.

Members then debated the results of the consultation.

Members supported a streamlined process which enabled Applicants to have a decision quicker, with less anxiety and less disruption to their work.

Members commented on the number of delegations that the Council gave to Officers and that Members were elected to make decisions and should be available to do so as that was part of their elected role.

Concerns were also raised regarding the impartiality of the Licensing Officers conducting the inspection if they had also processed the application. Members also expressed concern regarding one Officer essentially making the decision, as they would hold the overriding vote during a differing of opinion.

After comments from Members in regard to the impartiality of the proposed process, Officers agreed to report back to the Licencing Committee regularly with data on the number of decisions made, the outcomes (especially refusals) and the Officers involved. This would allow Members the opportunity to review the process and to ensure that there was a sufficient level of impartiality from WRS.

Members queried the possibility of having a more robust consultation process and raised ideas, which included a drop-in centre, approaching drivers on the ranks, inviting drivers to sit on a panel and sending a letter out to all drivers. However, Officers highlighted to Members that this might not be appropriate for a policy amendment and a reserved approach was advised, as historically responses to such consultations had not generated a large amount of interest.

Members raised their concerns with the corruption of the consultation data and were unhappy with the impact to the results. Members questioned the possibility of requiring respondents to include their name on future consultations, however, Officers advised Members to express caution as that could limit those wishing to submit responses to consultations.

In consideration of the above preamble Councillor Baker-Price proposed an Alternative Recommendation that the consultation be repeated with the proposed restriction of IPs to a single response, this was seconded by Councillor Khan. On being put to a vote the Alternative Recommendation was lost.

On being put to a vote it was

RESOLVED that

Officers proceed with the actions required to delegate authority to determine applications for licences to use vehicles as hackney carriages or private hire vehicles where the vehicle does not meet the Council’s required criteria in respect of the age of the vehicle.