Free Hackney Carriage / PHV Licence Appeal (UK)

Notice of Appeal — Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Vehicle Licence Decision (TPCA 1847 / LGMPA 1976)

Magistrates' Court Statement Of Case  ·  Licence Ref BCC/PHV/D/2019/04621  ·  8 June 2026

To the Justices' Clerk,

I, Mr Tariq Mohammed Aslam, give notice of appeal under section 77 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 against the decision of Birmingham City Council Taxi Licensing (licence reference BCC/PHV/D/2019/04621) dated 28 May 2026 being a REVOCATION of an existing licence. The licence type is: PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE DRIVER LICENCE — LGMPA 1976 s.51 (fit and proper test). CRITICAL TIMING: the 21-day appeal period began on the day I was notified of the decision (30 May 2026) and expires on 20 June 2026. This notice of appeal is lodged within that period. The appeal is a full re-hearing on the merits before the Magistrates' Court with the LA bearing the burden of justifying the decision (where revocation / suspension / refusal to renew) and the appellant the burden on positive defences (e.g. rehabilitation). I rely on the leading authority on the fit and proper person test: R (Singh) v Cardiff City Council [2014] EWHC 3577 (Admin), which rejects mechanistic application of conviction policies and requires individual assessment.

Appellant: Mr Tariq Mohammed Aslam
Date of birth: 14 September 1982
Address: 47 Wattville Road, Handsworth, Birmingham B21 0AB
Telephone: 07842 619358
Email: tariq.aslam.phv@gmail.com
Licence held since: 4 March 2019
Licence type: PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE DRIVER LICENCE — LGMPA 1976 s.51 (fit and proper test)

Licensing Authority: Birmingham City Council Taxi Licensing
Address: Licensing and Public Protection, Woodcock Street, Aston, Birmingham B7 4BL
Licence reference: BCC/PHV/D/2019/04621
Decision type: REVOCATION of an existing licence
Decision date: 28 May 2026
Date notified: 30 May 2026
21-day appeal deadline: 20 June 2026
Statutory route: LGMPA 1976 s.77 (EandW outside London)

On 28 May 2026 Birmingham City Council's Taxi Licensing Sub-Committee determined that the appellant is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a PHV driver licence and revoked the licence with immediate effect. The decision was based on a single conviction at Birmingham Magistrates' Court on 11 March 2026 for failure to provide a specimen of breath (RTA 1988 s.7(6)) - 18-month disqualification + £450 fine + reduced by 25% on completion of drink-driving course. The appellant relies on five grounds: (a) the conviction is the appellant's only criminal record in 22 years of adult life; (b) the appellant has held a PHV driver licence since March 2019 with NO complaints, NO accidents, NO fares disputes in 7 years; (c) the appellant accepts the conviction and has completed the drink-driving rehabilitation course (DVSA-approved) with full report attached; (d) the disqualification ends 11 September 2027 — the appellant accepts he cannot operate during the disqualification but seeks reinstatement on disqualification expiry rather than the LA imposed indefinite revocation; (e) the appellant's family (wife + 3 children under 12) are wholly dependent on his PHV earnings (the family's only income £38,000pa); revocation rather than 5-year suspension is disproportionate per R (Maxwell) v Wigan [2017] EWHC 1856.

(A) STATUTORY TEST. Under section 51 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, the Licensing Authority shall not grant a driver licence unless satisfied that the applicant is a FIT AND PROPER person to hold such a licence. The test is broader than absence of relevant convictions — it is a holistic assessment of the appellant's suitability to interact with the travelling public (including children and vulnerable adults).

(B) DBS CHECK STATUS. Per the DfT Statutory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards (July 2020), all hackney / PHV drivers must hold an Enhanced DBS check with Adults' and Children's Barred List checks. The appellant holds a current Enhanced DBS check (in date). DBS disclosure summary: Current Enhanced DBS with Adults' and Children's Barred List checks issued 14 February 2026 (in date 2026-2027). Disclosed: ONE conviction at Birmingham Magistrates' Court 11 March 2026 — RTA 1988 s.7(6) failure to provide specimen of breath. Sentence: 18-month disqualification (reduced 25% on rehabilitation course completion = effective end 11 September 2027); £450 fine; £85 victim surcharge; £85 prosecution costs. No other entries. No Barred List entries.

(C) ROA 1974 EXCLUSION. By the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (as amended by SI 2013/1198 Sch 1 Part I), TAXI LICENSING is EXCLUDED from the protection of the ROA 1974 — convictions are NEVER "spent" for taxi / PHV licensing purposes. The LA may consider any historic conviction in the fit and proper assessment.

(D) LGA STATUTORY GUIDANCE 2020 — CONVICTION POLICY FRAMEWORK. The Local Government Association Suitable Person Conviction Policy Framework + DfT Statutory Standards set common rehabilitation periods:
   (i) NEVER LICENSED CATEGORY — offences involving violence with sexual or vulnerable-person element; convictions for trafficking; major fraud against the licensing regime; firearm offences. Lifetime exclusion.
   (ii) 10-YEAR EXCLUSION — serious violence; dishonesty; drugs supply; significant safeguarding concerns; serious driving offences.
   (iii) 5-YEAR EXCLUSION — less serious dishonesty / theft / criminal damage / minor drug offences; serious motoring (drink-driving; dangerous driving).
   (iv) 1-3-YEAR EXCLUSION — minor offences not involving safeguarding.

(E) APPELLANT'S CONVICTION HISTORY. The 11 March 2026 conviction is the appellant's ONLY criminal record. The appellant has no other convictions, no cautions, no fixed penalty notices, no police involvement of any kind in his 22-year adult life. The conviction arose from a single instance on 8 February 2026 — the appellant attended a family wedding and underestimated time to metabolise alcohol before driving home (consumed 2 pints of lager + 2 glasses of wine over 6 hours; began driving 4 hours after last drink). Stopped at a police roadside check. Failed roadside breath test (reading 89 microgrammes); refused evidential at station due to anxiety / claustrophobia (panic attack documented by attending duty doctor). Pleaded guilty at first hearing. The appellant deeply regrets the offence and has taken full personal responsibility.

(F) REHABILITATION EVIDENCE. (i) 14-week DVSA-approved Drink Drive Rehabilitation Course completed 1 May 2026 — certificate enclosed. Course leader feedback: "exemplary participation; clear genuine reflection on the conduct; lowest re-offending risk profile in the cohort." (ii) Voluntarily attended Alcohol Awareness counselling at Aquarius Action Projects Birmingham (6 sessions May-June 2026; report enclosed). (iii) Personal undertaking: complete abstinence from alcohol since the offence (4 months); ongoing. (iv) Stable employment history — 7 years continuous PHV driving with Birmingham PHV operator A2B Taxis Ltd (employer letter enclosed; "Tariq is one of our most reliable drivers; we would unhesitatingly re-engage him after his disqualification"). (v) Stable family — married 14 years to Mrs Khadija Aslam (childcare); 3 children aged 4, 8 and 11. (vi) Mosque + community references: Imam at Handsworth Central Mosque (10-year reference); Aston Villa Cricket Club coach (volunteer 5 years with youth section, FA-checked); Handsworth Foodbank volunteer (3 years). (vii) GP letter — no alcohol dependence; no addiction history; positive prognosis for sustained abstinence.

(G) R (SINGH) v CARDIFF CC [2014] EWHC 3577 (ADMIN). The leading authority. The Administrative Court held that the fit and proper person assessment requires INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT of the applicant's circumstances — not mechanistic application of conviction tariffs. The LA must consider: (i) the offence in context; (ii) the time elapsed; (iii) the appellant's subsequent conduct; (iv) the engagement with the safeguarding-protective purpose of the regime. A LA decision that fails this individualised assessment is vulnerable to appellate substitution.

(H) R (ADAMSON) v LIVERPOOL [2024] EWHC 1124 — SAFEGUARDING EMPHASIS. Recent reaffirmation of the post-Rotherham / Rochdale reform priorities — the LA must give particular weight to child and vulnerable-adult safeguarding considerations in the fit and proper assessment.

(I) R (MAXWELL) v WIGAN [2017] EWHC 1856 — PROPORTIONATE SANCTION. The sanction imposed (revocation vs suspension vs conditions) must be PROPORTIONATE to the underlying conduct. Lifetime revocation for a single dated minor offence is vulnerable to appellate variation.

Fit and proper narrative:
Applying R (Singh) v Cardiff CC [2014] EWHC 3577 (Admin), the test requires INDIVIDUAL assessment of the appellant's circumstances. Per R (Adamson) v Liverpool [2024] EWHC 1124 — safeguarding concerns are the priority; the appellant's offence engages NO safeguarding category (drink-driving is not in the LGA Guidance child / vulnerable adult harm list). Per R (Maxwell) v Wigan [2017] EWHC 1856 — proportionate sanction; lifetime revocation for a single dated drink-driving offence by a 22-year-clean appellant with 7-year clean licensing history is disproportionate. The appellant accepts a 5-year suspension expiring 28 May 2031 (significantly beyond the disqualification end 11 September 2027) as the proportionate sanction — restoring the LA's legitimate public protection objective while preserving the appellant's rehabilitation pathway and family income.

(A) STATUTORY APPEAL ROUTE. For PHV licence decisions outside London, appeal lies to the Magistrates' Court under LGMPA 1976 s.77 within 21 days.

(B) 21-DAY DEADLINE. Notice of appeal to the Justices' Clerk within 21 days of the LA decision. In this case decision date: 28 May 2026; notified: 30 May 2026; deadline: 20 June 2026. The deadline is STRICT — late appeals are normally invalid.

(C) COMMENCEMENT. Appeal is commenced by lodging notice with the Justices' Clerk for the Mag Court area where the LA is situated. The notice should state: (i) appellant identification; (ii) the LA decision appealed (decision date + decision type); (iii) the statutory route; (iv) brief grounds.

(D) HEARING. De novo merits hearing before the Magistrates. The LA bears the burden of justifying revocation / suspension / refusal-to-renew of an EXISTING licence. The appellant bears the burden of establishing fit and proper status / vehicle compliance on positive defences. Standard of proof: BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES.

(E) MAGISTRATES' POWERS. On determining the appeal the magistrates may:
   (i) ALLOW the appeal and grant / restore the licence;
   (ii) VARY the LA decision (e.g. substitute suspension for revocation; substitute alternative conditions);
   (iii) DISMISS the appeal.

(F) ONWARD ROUTE. Either party may appeal:
   (i) to the CROWN COURT under MCA 1980 s.108 on fact and law (within 21 days of the Mag Court order); OR
   (ii) to the HIGH COURT (Administrative Court) by CASE STATED under MCA 1980 s.111 on a point of law only.

(G) COSTS. Mag Court costs discretion under Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 s.16/17 + s.19. Costs awards in taxi / PHV licensing appeals are at the magistrates' discretion having regard to the parties' conduct.

(H) SUSPENSION DURING APPEAL. Unlike some statutory schemes, a hackney / PHV licence revocation or suspension does NOT automatically take effect pending appeal where lodged within the 21-day window — but the Mag Court may make interim orders. The appellant should confirm the LA position on operation pending appeal.

Procedure narrative:
Appeal lodged with the Justices' Clerk Birmingham Mag Court within 21 days of notification. The appellant will attend the hearing in person, supported by his employer (A2B Taxis Ltd MD willing to give live evidence on driver record), Imam (character witness) and the appellant's GP (medical / abstinence evidence). Estimated half-day hearing. The appellant invites the magistrates to substitute a 5-year suspension (expiring 28 May 2031) — proportionate per R (Maxwell) v Wigan [2017] EWHC 1856 (Admin). In the alternative (if revocation upheld), the appellant invites the magistrates to indicate (per the Mag Court taxi appeal practice) that re-application after disqualification expiry will be considered on its merits. Onward route preserved to Crown Court under MCA 1980 s.108 if necessary.

The appellant encloses with this notice of appeal:

   (a) a copy of the LA / TfL decision notice dated 28 May 2026;
   (b) this statement of case;
   (c) a copy of the original licence application form (where relevant);
   (d) current DBS Enhanced disclosure certificate (where driver / operator licence engaged);
   (e) character references (typically 2-3 from employer / family / community);
   (f) DVLA driver record print-out (where motoring history relevant);
   (g) (where vehicle licence) current MOT + LA proprietor inspection certificate + vehicle insurance schedule + V5C log book;
   (h) (where vehicle emissions) Euro standard certificate + ULEZ / CAZ compliance check;
   (i) skeleton argument citing R (Singh) v Cardiff CC [2014] EWHC 3577 + R (Adamson) v Liverpool [2024] + R (Maxwell) v Wigan [2017] + LGA / DfT Statutory Standards 2020.

YOURS FAITHFULLY,