Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support
Minutes:
The Chair invited the Applicant to speak in support of his application
APPLICANT
Mr McNeill advised his presentation was the same as that for the first hearing
(at item 3a above) and that he had nothing further to add.
QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTORS
There were no questions from the Objectors.
OBJECTORS
Mr Cowin
Mr Cowin said it was worth pointing out the comments made in Mr
Romilly’s objection contained within the Agenda pack about Mr McNeill’s
vehicles having bald tyres. He also
referred to an approach by Mr McNeill to Companies House.
Mr Romilly
Mr Romilly referred to complaints he had made to the licensing team not
being dealt with. He advised that not
everything they had complained about would have been a Police Scotland matter.
QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT
Mr McNeill referred to a company being bought out by another company in
Dumbarton but this had been removed by the Committee as a proper partnership
had not been formed.
MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS
Councillor Howard asked if there was still the demand for a third taxi
car licence, noting the other 2 that had just been granted.
Councillor Green commented that the Committee had previously taken the
view that the LVSA report produced some time ago was outdated and that a
replacement report was requested. Ms
Clanahan confirmed that the number of taxi car licences was now 49, taking
account of the 2 granted today. She said
this was an increase of 1 since September last year and an increase of 1 since
the LVSA report was produced. She
advised that it was at the Committee’s discretion to decide whether or not
there was an over provision.
Councillor Brown commented that a lot of the issues the objectors have
flagged up were from people that had come to them. She noted that Mr and Mrs Romilly had raised
these issues with the Council and asked if they were aware if the people
concerned had flagged up their own issues to the Council. Mr Romilly said that any complaints that have
come to them they had reverted the complainants back to the licensing team. He referred to the complaint in relation to
an incident outside Tescos, and said this had still
to be resolved. He said he was aware of
complainants that had gone direct to the Council.
Councillor McCabe asked if the person involved in the incident at Tesco
had contacted the licensing team. She
also asked why no one had responded to the complaints. Ms Clanahan advised that she could not
comment on any complaint from a third party due to GDPR. She advised that it was her understanding
that Mrs Romilly’s was the subject of an internal investigation and that there
was an outcome. She confirmed that all
relevant complaints received by the Council are looked into.
Councillor Kain commented that a lot of this was “he said” “she said”
and personal between the Applicant and the Objectors. He said the important issue was if the
vehicles were safe.
Councillor Blair referred to comments made about bald tyres and asked
Mr McNeill if he had a vehicle maintenance schedule. Mr McNeill advised that at that time they
used a local garage. He confirmed that
they were now using a compliant garage that did a lot of work with Renfrewshire
Council. He said that his vehicles were
sent over there every 4 weeks to ensure everything was above board. He confirmed that they had a regular recorded
regime for each vehicle.
Councillor Blair referred to the comments made about how businesses
were being ran and asked Mr Romilly if he would agree that no one should be
concerned about what was said as long as a person was working within the law
and the rules of the licence. Mr Romilly
advised that some of the comments made had been derogatory. He questioned the fitness of Mr McNeill as an
operator based on the derogatory comments he advised that Mr McNeill has
said. Councillor Blair suggested that if
this happened to him then he would sue for defamation of character and then he
would have the evidence of this in the form of a solicitor’s letter and queried
why no legal advice was ever sought if the alleged incidents had indeed
occurred.
Councillor Blair asked Ms Clanahan if routine spot checks were carried
out on vehicles by the Council. Ms
Clanahan advised that she did not know the particulars of how any spot checks
were conducted, further advising that there had been some changes in
enforcement officers, with a new person starting next week and this could
change current processes anyway. Ms
Clanahan advised that she understood that there were regular scheduled checks
carried out on vehicles by local authority mechanics.
Councillor Armour sought and received confirmation from Mr McNeill that
he had not made any comments to a Tesco employee.
Councillor Liz McCabe left the meeting during the Members’ Questions.
SUMMING UP
Objectors
Mr Cowin advised that he had nothing further to add.
Mr Romilly advised that he had nothing further to add.
Mrs Romilly said she would like to emphasise that she did not like
being treated as a child. She said that
it was not a case of “he said” “she said” and that they had provided all the
evidence ahead of this meeting. She said
there had been a lot of false allegations.
She said she was not here to lie and that she had nothing personal
against Mr McNeill.
She referred to the re-determination of the front taxi rank and advised
that if more taxi car licences were granted there would be nowhere for the
vehicles to sit.
She said that she believed that Mr McNeill was an unfit operator. She referred to his submission in response to
their objections and said that his submission was a personal attack against Mr
Romilly and his business. She said they
were not here to personally attack Mr McNeill.
Applicant
Mr McNeill said there had been no personal attack. He said he used to work with Mr Romilly
before he married Mrs Romilly. He said
he had no objection to working with any other operator and that he would be
happy to work with other operators to alleviate demand.
When asked, all parties confirmed that they had received a fair
hearing.
DEBATE
Councillor Armour sought and received confirmation that the Committee
were dealing with an application for a London Taxi TX4 registration number LO58
JXG.
Councillor Blair said he would be keen not to approve a third licence
for the Helensburgh and Lomond area at this time.
Councillor Green agreed that maybe 2 was enough.
Councillor Armour was also in agreement that a third licence should not
be issued at this time. He referred to
feeling uncomfortable with all the comments that had been made and said he did
not know who was telling the truth and who was not. He said there was no proof to go one way or
another. He said he appreciated the
objectors’ feelings but the Committee had to go with the information in front
of them. He said there was nothing the
Committee could object to, on the basis of the information before them today,
other than over provision. He advised
that the fact that the Committee had already granted 2 licences today led him
to feel that this one should not be granted.
He said he was minded not to grant the licence on the basis for over
provision.
Councillor Howard said clarification was required on the complaints
procedure and what checks were done by Officers. She referred to a question over the future of
the sea front taxi rank and said she did not think the Committee should grant
this application today.
Councillor Armour said he was quite certain Officers will have done
what needed to be done in terms of investigating a complaint. He said he had no issue with what Officers
would have done.
Councillor Green moved refusal of the application on the basis that it
was the opinion of the Committee that there was no significant unmet demand
locally to support the granting of another licence.
DECISION
The Committee agreed not to grant a Taxi Car Licence to Glasgow Coach
Drivers Limited for a London Taxi TX4 registration number LO58 JXG on the basis
that it was the opinion of the Committee that there was no significant unmet
demand for taxis in the Helensburgh and Lomond area.
It was noted that Mr McNeill would be notified of this in writing
within 7 days.
(Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted)