Buckinghamshire Council Wins Court Case on Taxi Licence Refusal

Buckinghamshire Council has successfully defended its decision to refuse a taxi licence application from Wasim Iqbal, a former driver whose previous licence was revoked following allegations of sexual assault. The council’s refusal was based on concerns over public safety and the applicant’s failure to disclose past disciplinary actions. The case was heard at Wycombe Magistrates Court on 3 February 2025, where the appeal was dismissed, reaffirming the council’s strict stance on ensuring passenger safety. A similar case was recently highlighted when a taxi driver lost an appeal over licence refusal in Buckinghamshire, demonstrating the council’s consistent enforcement of licensing policies.

Allegations and Licence Revocation

Mr Iqbal’s original private hire licence was revoked by Buckinghamshire Council in September 2022 after a report was made regarding a sexual assault on a female passenger. Although no legal action was taken by the police, the council determined that the nature of the allegations raised serious concerns about his suitability as a taxi driver.

In December 2023, Mr Iqbal applied for a new licence but failed to disclose that his previous one had been revoked, a violation of the council’s licensing policy. The council reviewed the application and, based on available evidence, decided that he did not meet the “fit and proper” criteria required to hold a taxi licence.

Legal Appeal and Court’s Findings

During the court proceedings, Mr Iqbal argued that the council placed excessive emphasis on the allegations against him, despite the police not taking further action. He also maintained that his positive conduct should have been given greater consideration.

However, the Magistrates found that the council had acted correctly in refusing the licence. The court highlighted inconsistencies in Mr Iqbal’s statements regarding the assault allegations:

"You were questioned about the sexual assault incident and failed to provide a credible or consistent account of the events at the time and were unable to fill in the gaps and time discrepancies and just said you had forgotten, which casts doubt on your version of events."

Additionally, the court addressed Mr Iqbal’s failure to disclose the revocation of his previous licence:

"You failed to disclose your previous private hire licence had been revoked and answered no to that specific question. When questioned by the council in interview and under oath today, you admitted you were aware at the time of submitting the application that you had incorrectly answered this question. However, you took no action whatsoever to rectify this and only disclosed it was a mistake."

Concerns Over Dishonesty

Further undermining his case, the court found that a reference letter submitted by Mr Iqbal in support of his application was not genuine. The letter, purportedly from an employer, was discovered to have been written by a friend, casting further doubt on his credibility. The Magistrates stated:

"It was established by investigation from the council and by your own evidence under oath that this letter was just written by your friend and not on behalf of their company. You must have either known or ought to have known that this letter was dishonest from the outset, however, you still submitted it as evidence to support your application and as evidence of your character. This casts a serious concern over your honesty and integrity and further highlights your dishonesty."

Costs and Council’s Response

Following the dismissal of the appeal, Mr Iqbal was ordered to pay £3,718.14 in legal costs to Buckinghamshire Council.

Mark Winn, Cabinet Member for Homelessness and Regulatory Services, reinforced the council’s commitment to public safety:

"The safety and protection of the public, especially our most vulnerable passengers, is a priority for Buckinghamshire Council. We are dedicated to rigorously enforcing our licencing policies to ensure that only individuals who can be trusted are granted licences. We welcome the Magistrates' decision, which reinforces our commitment to maintaining the highest standards of safety and integrity within our community."