Decision

Written decision for Scott Hancock t/a Amber Travel (PC2009313)

Published 20 November 2020

In the North West of England Traffic Area.

Redacted note of Decision.

1. Decision

On findings in accordance with Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 sections 14ZA(2), 17(1)(a) and 17(3)(e) and Transport Act 1985 section 28

1. The operator’s licence of Scott Hancock is revoked with effect from 23:45 hours on Tuesday 10 November 2020

2. Scott Hancock’s repute as an operator is lost and he is disqualified from holding a public service vehicle operator’s licence in Great Britain and Northern Ireland until 10 November 2022 ## Reasons

Scott Hancock holds a standard national public service vehicle operator’s licence authorising the use of two vehicles.

He was called to public inquiry on 20 October 2020 following his convictions for criminal offences arising from three separate incidents between 30 May 2019 and 11 May 2020. He also served 6 weeks imprisonment between 22 July 2020 and 1 September 2020.

Having heard evidence from Mr Hancock on 20 October 2020, I adjourned the hearing to await the outcome of the sentencing decision in relation to his most recent conviction.

On 20 September 2019 Mr Hancock was sentenced at Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court for two offences of common assault by beating committed against his estranged partner and [REDACTED] on 30 May 2019. He was also convicted of criminal damage to the estranged partner’s home and belongings on the same date. The court imposed a sentence of 12 weeks imprisonment suspended for 18 months.

On 1 April 2020 Mr Hancock committed a further offence by threatening messages to his former partner. He was convicted of the offence and sentence on 22 July 2020. The court activated the suspended sentence and sent Mr Hancock to prison for 6 weeks with the remaining 6 weeks to be served in the community. It was reported that in mitigation, Mr Hancock’s solicitor blamed the incident on his cocaine use.

Whilst awaiting the outcome of that case, Mr Hancock was involved in what has been described as a “road rage incident” at a supermarket car park on 11 May 2020. Police evidence of the incident was that Mr Hancock had become involved in a row with a stranger and had kicked the victim’s car. Later Mr Hancock had got in his own car and used it to ram the victim’s car. Mr Hancock pleaded guilty to a charge of criminal damage relating to the incident. On 28 October 2020 Mr Hancock was sentenced at North Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court to a Community Order for 6 months with an unpaid work requirement of 120 hours and a rehabilitation activity requirement

Mr Hancock accepted all three convictions in his evidence on 20 October 2020. He also accepted that the facts were as set out in the press reports and statement of [REDACTED] included in the brief served on him beforehand.

Mr Hancock has been involved in three separate incidents over the last 18 months which have involved a significant loss of self-control; the most recent involving a stranger encountered in public. There is also evidence that abuse of a Class A drug may have fuelled his conduct. The last two incidents are also aggravated by the fact they were committed whilst subject to a suspended sentence for the first matter.

Following the conviction in 2019, Mr Hancock had his private hire taxi licence withdrawn by Chesterfield Borough Council.

Mr Hancock’s current principle source of income is derived from a school bus contract with Derbyshire County Council. Following his conviction in July 2020, the council decided that the contract could continue but on condition that Mr Hancock himself did not drive.

On 12 August 2020 the nominated transport manager for the licence, [REDACTED] contracted my office to notify her resignation. A period of grace was granted for Mr Hancock to appoint a replacement by the date of this hearing. This was on the basis that Mr Hancock’s vehicles were not being operated at the time. Mr Hancock himself was serving the prison term of 6 weeks imposed on 22 July 2020.

Mr Hancock gave evidence that whilst he was in prison the licence was manged by a variety of persons including, [REDACTED] Trevor Barker. Mr Barker is a qualified transport manager and appeared at the public inquiry to support Mr Hancock. Mr Barker has corresponded with my office on behalf of Mr Hancock and appears to have taken the primary responsibility for trying to find an alternative transport manager for the licence.

Mr Hancock has now confirmed to my office that he is unable to nominate a replacement transport manager and I find he lacks professional competence as required by section 14ZA(2)(d) of the Act and the grounds for revocation in section 17(1)(a) apply.

The call up letter asked Mr Hancock to produce evidence of financial standing including bank statements for the past 3 months. The required level of financial standing is £12,450.

Prior to the hearing Mr Hancock provided a document which purported to be unaudited accounts for the year ended 5 April 2021 and which was also marked “projections”. This document was of little or no value in understanding what funds Mr Hancock currently had available.

I gave a direction on 20 October 2020 that financial evidence should be provided by Wednesday 4 November 2020. Mr Hancock has not provided that evidence and has indicated he does not wish to seek the continuance of the licence.

As I have not been provided with evidence that Mr Hancock continues to meet the requirement of financial standing in section 14ZA(2)(c) of the Act, this is a material change in his circumstances which engages the ground for revocation in section 17(3)(e) of the Act.

In relation to the criminal offences, I give Mr Hancock some credit for the fact these were promptly reported to my office. However that does not come close to outweighing the gravity of those matters.

Mr Hancock has been involved in three separate incidents over the last 18 months which have involved a significant loss of self-control; the most recent involving a stranger encountered in public. There is also evidence that abuse of a Class A drug may have fuelled his conduct. The last two incidents are also aggravated by the fact they were committed whilst subject to a suspended sentence for the first matter. They were not only in breach of the law, but a specific direction of the court intended to control Mr Hancock’s future conduct.

The incident in May 2020 is also of even greater relevance to Mr Hancock’s repute as a transport operator as it involved his use of a motor vehicle (albeit his private motor car) as a weapon to cause damage. Whilst these offences do not engage the mandatory loss of repute provisions, I am satisfied their nature and number are of a degree that justifies a discretionary finding on fitness.

The nature of these repeated violent and volatile incidents all committed within a 12 month period is such that I am satisfied that right-thinking people, whether members of the public or law-abiding participants in the industry, would consider that Mr Hancock was not fit to hold an operator’s licence. The fact that the two more recent incidents were committed whilst subject to, and in breach of, a suspended prison sentence imposed by the criminal court means I cannot have any confidence that Mr Hancock can be trusted at present to operate compliantly with the requirements of the operator’s licencing regime.

I find that Mr Hancock has lost his good repute as required by section 14ZA(2)(b) of the Act. This is another material change in his circumstances as a licence holder and engages the grounds for revocation in section 17(3)(e) of the Act.

I indicated during the hearing that I was considering disqualification in addition to the revocation of the licence and invited Mr Hancock to make representations on whether such an order should be made and its duration if made.

Mr Hancock argued that he had overcome the difficulties that had affected his life in recent years and asked for a second chance to allow him to continue his licence. He had been through a rough patch but was due to start counselling. He presented me with a number of character references, but these cannot outweigh the bare facts of the criminal convictions.

Since the hearing on 20 October 2020, I have been informed that Mr Hancock wished to surrender his licence as he was unable to find a transport manager and because the business was struggling due to the effects of the pandemic. He has returned the licence and discs to my office.

Mr Hancock expressed the hope that he could at some future time reapply for a licence.

I offered Mr Hancock the opportunity for the public inquiry to be resumed so he could make further representations. Mr Hancock indicated that he did not wish to make further representations and was content for a decision to be reached on the evidence already presented.

I have listened to Mr Hancock’s submissions, but the recent criminal behaviour is so recent that I wish to be satisfied he was fully rehabilitated before I would consider granting him a licence in future. At the very least I would wish to see evidence of an extended period without reoffending. I would also wish to be satisfied he had undertaken steps to address his recent behaviour and was rehabilitated.

To allow those steps to rehabilitation to be completed and evidence, I consider a period of disqualification for 2 years is appropriate.

The revocation will take effect in one week’s time. As the licence is no longer being operated, the usual time to wind down the business is not required. In any event, I direct that the suspension of the licence that I imposed on 20 October 2020 remains in place until revocation.

A separate decision will be issued in relation to Mr Hancock’s vocational driving entitlement.

Gerallt Evans

Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England

4 November 2020