Posted on the 2nd October 2025 in PHTM News

STOCKTON COUNCIL REFUSES TAXI LICENCE OVER CRASH AND DRIVING OFFENCES

A Stockton taxi driver has been denied the renewal of his licence after a council committee heard conflicting accounts of a crash in Norton, where another motorist claimed the driver was "looking at his phone" moments before the collision.

The incident on Crooks Barn Lane, Norton, at 4:30 pm on March 3, was reviewed by Stockton Council's licensing committee as the unnamed driver applied to renew his hackney carriage and private hire licence.

The other motorist involved claimed the taxi driver was "not paying attention to the road as he was looking at his mobile telephone". He told the committee he was trapped in his vehicle after the collision and that the driver initially apologised and "accepted the collision was his fault," only to deny it later.

The complainant added the driver was "clearly looking downwards as he turned the corner," seemingly distracted by a mobile device or "pressing something, possibly a map."

The taxi driver disputed the other motorist's account, claiming the other car caused the crash by entering his lane at speed around a corner. While denying he was distracted, the driver did "admit looking at a device to see where he needed to go." His representative, David Wilson, described the crash as potentially a "quirk of timing and fate" and maintained the driver was "not distracted in any way."

However, the committee also heard the driver's licence showed 10 DVLA penalty points. He accepted he had committed two speeding offences in seven months and expected to accumulate seven or more points once those matters concluded, though he denied and was appealing a 2024 offence of failing to give driver information.

In reaching a unanimous decision to refuse the licence, the committee noted the driver's conduct and attitude. Minutes from the meeting state the driver "appeared to dispute matters repeatedly" and "did not appear to offer any mitigation in relation to the speeding offences that he accepted guilt for," instead suggesting such errors were a "'fait accompli' for anyone driving for a number of years."

The committee expressed serious reservations, concluding that members "were not persuaded that [the driver] was a fit and proper person, as they found that they had too many doubts in relation to the matters of concern before them."

The committee added that they were "not satisfied that they would allow people for whom they care to enter a vehicle with [the driver] due to their doubts surrounding his history of driving-related incidents and offences."


Read another story