A hearing was called to determine whether Unicorn Cars could be granted a restricted licence following allegations of an uninsured vehicle and other driving offences
Warwickshire County Council has failed to prevent Stratford-upon-Avon-based Unicorn Cars being granted a one-vehicle restricted licence on grounds of repute.
The company, of Goldicote, Stratford-upon-Avon, applied for the licence before Traffic Commissioner (TC) Nick Denton. The hearing was called after an email was received from Austin Reeves, a Warwickshire County Councils Operations Inspector, which alleged that Director Rakesh Singh had been charged with allowing an uninsured vehicle to be driven and driving without his driver’s badge or displaying the car’s licence plates correctly.
The other Director, Harjeet Bawa, had appealed to the Crown Court against a penalty awarded by the District Council suspending her from operating for three weeks for driving a vehicle with more passengers than seat belts were available for.
Rakesh Singh had also appealed to the Crown Court against a charge of using a mobile phone while driving.
For the company, Tim Culpin argued that the email did not amount to a formal objection by a local authority because it was not submitted to OTC Leeds as required and it was not copied, as required, to the company.
The TC said that while he could not rule that it was a valid objection, the issues raised were relevant. Mr Culpin said that while Rakesh Singh was originally convicted of a criminal offence of permitting the use of a vehicle when that vehicle was not insured for its driver, that conviction was quashed on appeal.
Neither Rakesh Singh nor Harjeet Barwa had any criminal convictions. The issues raised related, in the main, to appeals against the decisions of the Stratford District Council Licensing Panel and the Magistrates’ Court determinations of appeals against those decisions and subsequent appeals to the Crown Court.
Stratford District Council, which licensed all the private hire taxis and hackney carriages operated by the company, and which had been the respondents to all the majority of the appeals, had raised no issue with the application.
In relation to the seatbelt incident, Mr Reeves failed to inform the TC that the appeal was successful, that the penalty was quashed and that Stratford District Council was criticised by the judge for the way it had dealt with this matter.
The County Council was continuing to award the company contracts, even awarding one that day for carrying disabled children.
The TC said that he was not too concerned about the failure to display a badge and plate, so it really boiled down to the mobile phone matter.
Mr Culpin said that the mobile phone fell from its cradle into the footwell on the driver side between the pedals. Rakesh Singh was concerned that it might get under the pedals and impede his control of the vehicle so he reached down and picked it up. He had a quick look at it to see if it was damaged and then put it down. It could not have been in the palm of his hand for more than a couple of seconds.
The TC said that he did not see that on its own was going to take away the company’s repute. In the bundle of documents was a letter of recommendation from the County Council. If the County and District Councils felt that repute was so bad why were they still issuing the company with contracts? Why should the company not be given a PSV O-Licence when it was allowed to carry children in smaller vehicles?
