Casey Report on child sexual exploitation Rotherham (extract)

4. TAXIS AND CHILD SEXUAL EXPLOITATION

‘[I am working with a girl] she caught a taxi to her boyfriends and she was let off the

fare as she didn’t have much money. He took her to McDonalds and bought her

food…she realised he was much older, in his late 30s. He took her out to XXX in his

taxi – she believes another young woman was locked in a room – he tried to have

sex in the car…she has given the details in a statement to the police…...’

‘It’s not safe to use taxis.’

Inspectors were directed to consider whether RMBC, in light of the Jay report which

highlighted serious failings in the authority over a number of years with regard to the

safeguarding of children, was and continues to be subject to institutionalised political

correctness, affecting its decision-making on sensitive issues; to consider whether

RMBC undertook and continues to undertake sufficient liaisons with other agencies,

particularly the police, local health partners, and the safeguarding board and whether

RMBC took and continues to take sufficient steps to ensure only ‘fit and proper

persons’ are permitted to hold a taxi licence.

Concern around taxis remains pervasive in the town. Throughout the inspection,

individual inspectors frequently heard that people did not feel safe using taxis. The

well publicised link between taxis and CSE in Rotherham has and continues to cast

a long shadow over the vast majority of law abiding drivers who make their living

from the taxi trade. So it is not only to protect potential victims from unscrupulous

drivers that RMBC needs to get their house in order and regulate taxis effectively,

but also for the drivers who are damned by association.

Professor Jay deemed the prominent role of taxi drivers in CSE as a ‘common

thread’ across England and noted that their involvement was evident from an early

stage in Rotherham. ‘Residential unit heads met in the 90s to discuss taxis collecting

girls, school heads in early 2000s reported taxis picking girls up to provide oral sex in

the lunch break’ she said.

The Jay report described how the Safeguarding Unit in the Council convened

Strategy meetings from time to time on allegations of CSE involving taxi drivers. She

described meeting minutes demonstrating how a single operator was the subject of

four meetings in a seven week period, girls having disclosed information in 2010,

recording how children were being sexually exploited for free taxi rides and goods

and noted three cases of attempted abduction. She also recorded that RMBC had

advised that taxi drivers had only been involved in a total of four CSE-related cases

(between 2009 and 2012), which had all been dealt with appropriately by the

Council’s licensing authority.

111

Licensing Authority – denial that they knew of a CSE problem

When conducting interviews across the licensing service, Inspectors asked for

reflections on the Jay report, on CSE in Rotherham, on work with police and social

care and on the awareness of indicators such as Abduction Notices in alerting

officials that licensed drivers may have developed inappropriate relationships with

underage girls. Inspectors were mindful that Licensing Authorities can

suspend/revoke licences on the balance of probabilities and do not need to prove an

allegation or complaint beyond reasonable doubt, or await a conviction.

In interview, the Director of Housing and Neighbourhood Services, who is

responsible for the licensing service, expressed annoyance at the impact the Jay

report had had on the Council and remained adamant that the four CSE-related

revocations of licences quoted by Professor Jay represented the full extent of taxi

driver involvement in CSE in Rotherham. He said that one of those revocations (in

January 2011) had marked his first awareness of CSE as an issue. Since the

inspection had been announced, he had reviewed a total of 1400 cases (on all kinds

of complaints) and only eight had given cause for concern. He remained confident:

‘our service is compliant with the best in the area’.

Specifically, he stated that the concerns expressed in Strategy meetings about cases

from 2010 described by Professor Jay were unfounded. He subsequently

established that the information was correct; but intelligence from these meetings or

from Responsible Authority meetings had not been fed up to him: ‘I don’t know what I

don’t know’. When questioned about systems to ensure the Licensing service was

made aware by police of any Abduction Notices issued against drivers, he

responded ‘Abduction notices mean no proof’. Lack of ‘proof’ was a continuing

theme: “Rotherham is a village, professional gossip becomes fact the question for

me is “what is veracity?”’ An officer

Less senior staff displayed some ambivalence. Most officers said they would not use

a private hire taxi or allow their families to do so. Concerns were also expressed that

children in residential units could be ordering taxis by mobile phone and that care

workers could be powerless to stop taxi drivers from either grooming young women

or transporting them to be exploited.

However, officers echoed the senior management view that the four cases where

drivers had lost licences for CSE-related reasons represented the full extent of

proven taxi driver involvement in CSE. Officers repeatedly stressed that if presented

with evidence of CSE (preferably by police in the form of a conviction) they would act

on it by suspending drivers. They appeared less able to grasp the notion that in the

arena of CSE ‘evidence’ rarely appears fully formed and may need to be established

by building a composite picture based on different sources of information.

112

Evidence that the Licensing Authority knew of taxis and CSE as a problem

In trying to assess the level of concern around taxi drivers and CSE and whether the

licensing authority at the Council knew about it and responded to that concern, the

inspection mainly considered documentary evidence since 2010. All members of the

current licensing team were in position at that point.

Inspectors found that the Licensing Manager and the Principal Environmental Health

officer had attended a meeting of the Exploitation Steering sub-group in 2010 at

which there had been wide-ranging discussions under the agenda heading 'Taxi

Licensing and links to Sexual Exploitation'. In November 2010, it was agreed to '

collate a small short task and finish group... in order to investigate allegations that

taxi and takeaways were using their position to engage with vulnerable children'. In

February 2011, a Safeguarding Manager confirmed a link had been established and

that they had attended a meeting with the Assistant Chief Executive where this has

been confirmed. One of the recorded actions was to invite Members of the licensing

board to a national sexual exploitation conference on the Operation Central lessons

learnt, planned for April 2011. The Exploitation sub-group meeting minutes confirm

that the Safeguarding Board had concerns in relation to taxis and CSE and that

licensing staff were aware of these.

Licensing officers were also invited to attend meetings convened by the Assistant

Chief Executive, which from 2010 had considered CSE. Officers told Inspectors they

had sought permission from senior management when first approached to attend the

meetings. Document bundles provided to the inspection include emails discussing

these meetings; senior managers were aware of the Strategy meetings and the

issues of CSE and taxis raised there. The service director maintains he was not

made aware and Inspectors have seen no evidence to contradict this.

Licensing officers who attended recalled being asked not to take notes and being

given scraps of intelligence and asked to check up on it and report back. They ran

some information through their systems. Some meetings had been general, others

had focused on specific young people at risk.

‘Grid of concerns’

A grid had been produced which itemised issues of concern raised at the meetings.

The grid was later provided to the Inspection team by the Council. It covered

Strategy meetings in 2010 and was accompanied by a letter to Inspectors from a

Senior Licensing Manager stressing that no officials had attended the meetings in

question, but confirming that the Licensing service had been provided with the grid

back in December 2010. This would indicate that the specific cases itemised in the

grid were known within the licensing authority from that date.

113

Over ten Strategy meetings were listed throughout 2010. Some were multi-agency.

All the concerns related to named young people, a high proportion of whom were

‘looked after’. There were three or four allegations relating to unidentified vehicles or

drivers, or to premises outside Rotherham. Otherwise, most allegations identified

specific operators (mainly Operators A, B and C) and in some cases named drivers.

Some of the named girls were involved in live police operations then underway, so

information came from the police.

Concerns were raised over:

• Taxi drivers harassing or attempting to abduct young people;

• Taxis behaving suspiciously in Clifton Park (a known hotspot for CSE);

• Taxi drivers collecting or dropping off young people from residential homes in a

drunken state or in possession of skunk marijuana;

• Young people reporting that they or their friends had performed sex acts in

taxis for cigarettes, alcohol or money – or had been asked to do so by taxi

drivers; and

• An allegation of rape and serious abuse.

Examples from the grid:

1. Child protection referral on X, by Y at Z residential unit. X’s peers say she is

giving out large sums of money, sometimes up to £60 to other young people. She

says she is receiving money, cigarettes and alcohol in return for providing sexual

acts for drivers from operator C and others. Her parents have also reported an

operator B taxi waiting outside the house to collect X more than once.

2. A 12 year old girl, part of a live police investigation disclosed rape and abuse of

other young females by X and describes X and his brother as taxi drivers (at

Operator B). She has also made allegations against his brother. Operator B taxis

have also been seen parked outside her school.

3. Park warden reported two Operator D cabs reported outside Clifton Park museum

at 7.30 at night, behaving suspiciously. Registration numbers were taken down and

cars checked out as Operator D vehicles.

Setting aside conflicting accounts of whether officials attended any or all of these

meetings, the Council’s licensing management have formally stated to the inspection

team that the grid of CSE concerns was provided to them in 2010, so the clear tenor

and pattern of allegations and the focus on certain operators should have been clear

to them.

114

Responsible Authority Meetings

Responsible Authority (RA) meetings were set up in accordance with the 2003

licensing act as a forum for agencies to discuss matters in relation to licensed

premises such as takeaways. The current Rotherham licensing manager chaired

these meetings from 2010 and presciently chose to include taxis as a standing item

on the agenda. She invited Risky Business to attend to provide intelligence on taxis

and licensed premises in regard to CSE. A member of the Safeguarding board also

attended most RA meetings as did a police liaison officer.

Concerns raised at RA meetings in 2010 include:

• Reports that operator E cabs are using unlicensed drivers who may be

transporting underage girls around.

• Child missing over the weekend, an item of her clothing reported to be left in

Operator B’s office (February).

• Concerns raised by a local Councillor and local residents about a taxi

transporting girls around the area who then indulge in sexual activity (Aug).

• Concerns about children conducting sexual acts for vodka or food at named

shops, takeaways and pubs.

• An allegation made to police by a 13 year old against a named driver.

• A taxi driver taking two ‘looked after’ girls to Sheffield.

• Girls being taken to Clifton Park by taxi drivers again. Abduction Notices

served against driver from Operators B and C.

• A missing 14 year old found at premises on Prince of Wales Road where an

Abduction Notice had been served on the taxi driver.

Responses to concerns

Inspectors interviewed officers about specific cases discussed at RA meetings and

reviewed a selection of incident files. A number of these illustrated issues of concern

to inspectors.

• A customer complained that operator E was using a driver whom s/he knew to

be unlicensed and a criminal. An enforcement officer opened a complaint,

then closed it the following day after calling the operator who claimed the

driver was his son and alleged a malicious complaint from his son’s ex-partner

and family. No investigation was conducted despite allegations at RA

meetings (see above) that the operator’s son could be involved in CSE. No

action was taken for allowing an unlicensed driver to drive a taxi. Five months

later a further complaint was received relating to the operator’s son again

driving a taxi. The complainant further stated that the son had just come out of

prison and that the licensing board had previously rejected his taxi badge

application in 2008 and that he had also been disqualified from driving. The

115

operator was said to be allowing three other unlicensed drivers to use his

vehicles. The case was closed on the basis of insufficient evidence to

continue.

• A social worker reported that Z, an Operator C driver, had turned up at 5am at

the house of a vulnerable client with learning difficulties and refused to leave

until she had sex with him. After repeated episodes the client feared she had

contracted an STD and the driver was now pressuring another vulnerable

person. Licensing officers were asked to make interim measures while police

were informed, but no action appears to have been taken.

• A mother complained that when her daughter struggled to open a taxi door

the driver told her ‘you could have been raped in the time it took you to do

that’. The daughter was very upset. The system records the case was closed

after the driver said his comments were taken out of context and notes the

‘informant was happy with that’. It is unclear whether the daughter was

spoken to.

Interviews conducted by Inspectors about licensing investigations coupled with

analysis of documents, demonstrated a failure to follow through concerns and

complaints into action. Inspectors were concerned that when an investigation was

passed on to the police it no longer appeared as active on the licensing

database/system. This means that no record of potentially serious cases could be

built up or taken into account if further complaints were made against a driver.

Investigations also appeared to have been halted on the basis of summary

assessments of the quality of evidence and whether it would satisfy the CPS.

Moreover, where cases had been referred to the police, no further action by police

was used as a basis for closing the case in the licensing team, even though (as has

been noted above) licensing can apply lower thresholds of proof.

Officers demonstrated little inclination to take steps to convert anecdote or

information into evidence, for example, by working with residential care homes to

monitor taxi activities.

One senior manager cited a joint operation between licensing and neighbourhood

safety officers to stand up allegations of CSE related activity in Clifton Park as an

example of licensing ‘going above and beyond’ in its attempts to gather evidence.

The operation had run for several evenings until 10pm and found nothing. This was

unsurprising as officials had held a meeting with the trade to alert them it would be

happening.

116

Inspectors were concerned that on the basis of a single, flawed and short-lived

surveillance operation licensing were prepared to give Clifton Park (and the taxis

which congregate there) a ‘clean bill of health’ in perpetuity.

Inspectors noted a repeated downplaying of low level harassment claims, ‘her

mother said she was probably pissed’ an enforcement officer commented, of a

complaint by a young woman that a taxi driver had put his hand on her leg unbidden.

The young woman herself was not interviewed.

Although Strategy and RA meeting notes repeatedly cited the same few operators in

relation to CSE linked issues, when asked if any operators gave particular cause for

concern in this regard, officers could not think of any.

The case of Operator B

Concerns were raised about this operator repeatedly in both Strategy and RA

meeting minutes. Officers built a case (not based on CSE concerns) against the

operator as ‘not a fit and proper person’, which was taken to the Licensing Board,

which revoked both of the operator’s licences (for operating and driving).

A magistrate’s court dismissed the operator’s appeal against the revocations.

However, in advance of a further Crown Court hearing RMBC accepted a deal

whereby the operator relinquished his operator’s licence, but kept his driver’s ‘badge’.

Shortly afterwards a family member of his applied for an operator’s licence, which

was granted and the operator continued trading under a new name. Officials continue

to deal with the original operator on licensing matters. In effect the operator carried

on under a new guise in full knowledge of the licensing team.

Revocations and current practice

Inspectors noted that only one of the four case studies handed over by RMBC

showing revocations of licence (between 2009 and 2012) arose out of the

investigation of a complaint. A mother complained after a driver followed her

daughter home. Inspectors heard that the board initially refused to hear the case

(because the daughter didn’t attend herself) and refused to keep the driver and

complainant separate when the hearing took place. Three others followed notification

from police of arrests so they acted upon that notification.

Inspectors were also concerned at officers’ attitude towards limousines. Limousines

with over eight seats come under the jurisdiction of VOSA, not the licensing

authority, but CSE related concerns had been raised at both Strategy meetings and

RA meetings about one particular company. The Licensing Authority expressed

disquiet that Children’s Safeguarding had written to schools in advance of the prom

season, advising parents that there had been CSE related concerns about limos.

117

This was seen as irregular and not based on ‘fact’, rather than an attempt to prevent

a serious issue falling through a gap in RMBC’s jurisdiction.

Inspectors noted that RA meetings are now chaired by a senior manager from the

licensing section, who will exert ‘tighter control’ of the discussion and minutes.

Inspectors also witnessed a discussion at a CSE tactical meeting in November 2014

during which a senior licensing manager challenged whether taxis and takeaways in

Rotherham should be included as possible areas where CSE may be occurring. Both

the Chair of the meeting and the CSE coordinator pointed out that taxi and

takeaways were identified as a risk nationally and there had been a historic link with

CSE in Rotherham. The senior manager did not accept that there was a current

problem with CSE and taxis and takeaways. Inspectors are concerned that the

services' refusal to accept a link with CSE is hampering its ability to take effective

action, investigate complaints properly, share intelligence appropriately or contribute

to building a composite picture enabling others to take action.

4. TAXIS AND CHILD SEXUAL EXPLOITATION ‘[I am working with a girl] she caught a taxi to her boyfriends and she was let off the fare as she didn’t have much money. He took her to McDonalds and bought her food…she realised he was much older, in his late 30s. He took her out to XXX in his taxi – she believes another young woman was locked in a room – he tried to have sex in the car…she has given the details in a statement to the police…...’ ‘It’s not safe to use taxis.’ Inspectors were directed to consider whether RMBC, in light of the Jay report which highlighted serious failings in the authority over a number of years with regard to the safeguarding of children, was and continues to be subject to institutionalised political correctness, affecting its decision-making on sensitive issues; to consider whether RMBC undertook and continues to undertake sufficient liaisons with other agencies, particularly the police, local health partners, and the safeguarding board and whether RMBC took and continues to take sufficient steps to ensure only ‘fit and proper persons’ are permitted to hold a taxi licence. Concern around taxis remains pervasive in the town. Throughout the inspection, individual inspectors frequently heard that people did not feel safe using taxis. The well publicised link between taxis and CSE in Rotherham has and continues to cast a long shadow over the vast majority of law abiding drivers who make their living from the taxi trade. So it is not only to protect potential victims from unscrupulous drivers that RMBC needs to get their house in order and regulate taxis effectively, but also for the drivers who are damned by association. Professor Jay deemed the prominent role of taxi drivers in CSE as a ‘common thread’ across England and noted that their involvement was evident from an early stage in Rotherham. ‘Residential unit heads met in the 90s to discuss taxis collecting girls, school heads in early 2000s reported taxis picking girls up to provide oral sex in the lunch break’ she said. The Jay report described how the Safeguarding Unit in the Council convened Strategy meetings from time to time on allegations of CSE involving taxi drivers. She described meeting minutes demonstrating how a single operator was the subject of four meetings in a seven week period, girls having disclosed information in 2010, recording how children were being sexually exploited for free taxi rides and goods and noted three cases of attempted abduction. She also recorded that RMBC had advised that taxi drivers had only been involved in a total of four CSE-related cases (between 2009 and 2012), which had all been dealt with appropriately by the Council’s licensing authority. 111 Licensing Authority – denial that they knew of a CSE problem When conducting interviews across the licensing service, Inspectors asked for reflections on the Jay report, on CSE in Rotherham, on work with police and social care and on the awareness of indicators such as Abduction Notices in alerting officials that licensed drivers may have developed inappropriate relationships with underage girls. Inspectors were mindful that Licensing Authorities can suspend/revoke licences on the balance of probabilities and do not need to prove an allegation or complaint beyond reasonable doubt, or await a conviction. In interview, the Director of Housing and Neighbourhood Services, who is responsible for the licensing service, expressed annoyance at the impact the Jay report had had on the Council and remained adamant that the four CSE-related revocations of licences quoted by Professor Jay represented the full extent of taxi driver involvement in CSE in Rotherham. He said that one of those revocations (in January 2011) had marked his first awareness of CSE as an issue. Since the inspection had been announced, he had reviewed a total of 1400 cases (on all kinds of complaints) and only eight had given cause for concern. He remained confident: ‘our service is compliant with the best in the area’. Specifically, he stated that the concerns expressed in Strategy meetings about cases from 2010 described by Professor Jay were unfounded. He subsequently established that the information was correct; but intelligence from these meetings or from Responsible Authority meetings had not been fed up to him: ‘I don’t know what I don’t know’. When questioned about systems to ensure the Licensing service was made aware by police of any Abduction Notices issued against drivers, he responded ‘Abduction notices mean no proof’. Lack of ‘proof’ was a continuing theme: “Rotherham is a village, professional gossip becomes fact the question for me is “what is veracity?”’ An officer Less senior staff displayed some ambivalence. Most officers said they would not use a private hire taxi or allow their families to do so. Concerns were also expressed that children in residential units could be ordering taxis by mobile phone and that care workers could be powerless to stop taxi drivers from either grooming young women or transporting them to be exploited. However, officers echoed the senior management view that the four cases where drivers had lost licences for CSE-related reasons represented the full extent of proven taxi driver involvement in CSE. Officers repeatedly stressed that if presented with evidence of CSE (preferably by police in the form of a conviction) they would act on it by suspending drivers. They appeared less able to grasp the notion that in the arena of CSE ‘evidence’ rarely appears fully formed and may need to be established by building a composite picture based on different sources of information. 112 Evidence that the Licensing Authority knew of taxis and CSE as a problem In trying to assess the level of concern around taxi drivers and CSE and whether the licensing authority at the Council knew about it and responded to that concern, the inspection mainly considered documentary evidence since 2010. All members of the current licensing team were in position at that point. Inspectors found that the Licensing Manager and the Principal Environmental Health officer had attended a meeting of the Exploitation Steering sub-group in 2010 at which there had been wide-ranging discussions under the agenda heading 'Taxi Licensing and links to Sexual Exploitation'. In November 2010, it was agreed to ' collate a small short task and finish group... in order to investigate allegations that taxi and takeaways were using their position to engage with vulnerable children'. In February 2011, a Safeguarding Manager confirmed a link had been established and that they had attended a meeting with the Assistant Chief Executive where this has been confirmed. One of the recorded actions was to invite Members of the licensing board to a national sexual exploitation conference on the Operation Central lessons learnt, planned for April 2011. The Exploitation sub-group meeting minutes confirm that the Safeguarding Board had concerns in relation to taxis and CSE and that licensing staff were aware of these. Licensing officers were also invited to attend meetings convened by the Assistant Chief Executive, which from 2010 had considered CSE. Officers told Inspectors they had sought permission from senior management when first approached to attend the meetings. Document bundles provided to the inspection include emails discussing these meetings; senior managers were aware of the Strategy meetings and the issues of CSE and taxis raised there. The service director maintains he was not made aware and Inspectors have seen no evidence to contradict this. Licensing officers who attended recalled being asked not to take notes and being given scraps of intelligence and asked to check up on it and report back. They ran some information through their systems. Some meetings had been general, others had focused on specific young people at risk. ‘Grid of concerns’ A grid had been produced which itemised issues of concern raised at the meetings. The grid was later provided to the Inspection team by the Council. It covered Strategy meetings in 2010 and was accompanied by a letter to Inspectors from a Senior Licensing Manager stressing that no officials had attended the meetings in question, but confirming that the Licensing service had been provided with the grid back in December 2010. This would indicate that the specific cases itemised in the grid were known within the licensing authority from that date. 113 Over ten Strategy meetings were listed throughout 2010. Some were multi-agency. All the concerns related to named young people, a high proportion of whom were ‘looked after’. There were three or four allegations relating to unidentified vehicles or drivers, or to premises outside Rotherham. Otherwise, most allegations identified specific operators (mainly Operators A, B and C) and in some cases named drivers. Some of the named girls were involved in live police operations then underway, so information came from the police. Concerns were raised over: • Taxi drivers harassing or attempting to abduct young people; • Taxis behaving suspiciously in Clifton Park (a known hotspot for CSE); • Taxi drivers collecting or dropping off young people from residential homes in a drunken state or in possession of skunk marijuana; • Young people reporting that they or their friends had performed sex acts in taxis for cigarettes, alcohol or money – or had been asked to do so by taxi drivers; and • An allegation of rape and serious abuse. Examples from the grid: 1. Child protection referral on X, by Y at Z residential unit. X’s peers say she is giving out large sums of money, sometimes up to £60 to other young people. She says she is receiving money, cigarettes and alcohol in return for providing sexual acts for drivers from operator C and others. Her parents have also reported an operator B taxi waiting outside the house to collect X more than once. 2. A 12 year old girl, part of a live police investigation disclosed rape and abuse of other young females by X and describes X and his brother as taxi drivers (at Operator B). She has also made allegations against his brother. Operator B taxis have also been seen parked outside her school. 3. Park warden reported two Operator D cabs reported outside Clifton Park museum at 7.30 at night, behaving suspiciously. Registration numbers were taken down and cars checked out as Operator D vehicles. Setting aside conflicting accounts of whether officials attended any or all of these meetings, the Council’s licensing management have formally stated to the inspection team that the grid of CSE concerns was provided to them in 2010, so the clear tenor and pattern of allegations and the focus on certain operators should have been clear to them. 114 Responsible Authority Meetings Responsible Authority (RA) meetings were set up in accordance with the 2003 licensing act as a forum for agencies to discuss matters in relation to licensed premises such as takeaways. The current Rotherham licensing manager chaired these meetings from 2010 and presciently chose to include taxis as a standing item on the agenda. She invited Risky Business to attend to provide intelligence on taxis and licensed premises in regard to CSE. A member of the Safeguarding board also attended most RA meetings as did a police liaison officer. Concerns raised at RA meetings in 2010 include: • Reports that operator E cabs are using unlicensed drivers who may be transporting underage girls around. • Child missing over the weekend, an item of her clothing reported to be left in Operator B’s office (February). • Concerns raised by a local Councillor and local residents about a taxi transporting girls around the area who then indulge in sexual activity (Aug). • Concerns about children conducting sexual acts for vodka or food at named shops, takeaways and pubs. • An allegation made to police by a 13 year old against a named driver. • A taxi driver taking two ‘looked after’ girls to Sheffield. • Girls being taken to Clifton Park by taxi drivers again. Abduction Notices served against driver from Operators B and C. • A missing 14 year old found at premises on Prince of Wales Road where an Abduction Notice had been served on the taxi driver. Responses to concerns Inspectors interviewed officers about specific cases discussed at RA meetings and reviewed a selection of incident files. A number of these illustrated issues of concern to inspectors. • A customer complained that operator E was using a driver whom s/he knew to be unlicensed and a criminal. An enforcement officer opened a complaint, then closed it the following day after calling the operator who claimed the driver was his son and alleged a malicious complaint from his son’s ex-partner and family. No investigation was conducted despite allegations at RA meetings (see above) that the operator’s son could be involved in CSE. No action was taken for allowing an unlicensed driver to drive a taxi. Five months later a further complaint was received relating to the operator’s son again driving a taxi. The complainant further stated that the son had just come out of prison and that the licensing board had previously rejected his taxi badge application in 2008 and that he had also been disqualified from driving. The 115 operator was said to be allowing three other unlicensed drivers to use his vehicles. The case was closed on the basis of insufficient evidence to continue. • A social worker reported that Z, an Operator C driver, had turned up at 5am at the house of a vulnerable client with learning difficulties and refused to leave until she had sex with him. After repeated episodes the client feared she had contracted an STD and the driver was now pressuring another vulnerable person. Licensing officers were asked to make interim measures while police were informed, but no action appears to have been taken. • A mother complained that when her daughter struggled to open a taxi door the driver told her ‘you could have been raped in the time it took you to do that’. The daughter was very upset. The system records the case was closed after the driver said his comments were taken out of context and notes the ‘informant was happy with that’. It is unclear whether the daughter was spoken to. Interviews conducted by Inspectors about licensing investigations coupled with analysis of documents, demonstrated a failure to follow through concerns and complaints into action. Inspectors were concerned that when an investigation was passed on to the police it no longer appeared as active on the licensing database/system. This means that no record of potentially serious cases could be built up or taken into account if further complaints were made against a driver. Investigations also appeared to have been halted on the basis of summary assessments of the quality of evidence and whether it would satisfy the CPS. Moreover, where cases had been referred to the police, no further action by police was used as a basis for closing the case in the licensing team, even though (as has been noted above) licensing can apply lower thresholds of proof. Officers demonstrated little inclination to take steps to convert anecdote or information into evidence, for example, by working with residential care homes to monitor taxi activities. One senior manager cited a joint operation between licensing and neighbourhood safety officers to stand up allegations of CSE related activity in Clifton Park as an example of licensing ‘going above and beyond’ in its attempts to gather evidence. The operation had run for several evenings until 10pm and found nothing. This was unsurprising as officials had held a meeting with the trade to alert them it would be happening. 116 Inspectors were concerned that on the basis of a single, flawed and short-lived surveillance operation licensing were prepared to give Clifton Park (and the taxis which congregate there) a ‘clean bill of health’ in perpetuity. Inspectors noted a repeated downplaying of low level harassment claims, ‘her mother said she was probably pissed’ an enforcement officer commented, of a complaint by a young woman that a taxi driver had put his hand on her leg unbidden. The young woman herself was not interviewed. Although Strategy and RA meeting notes repeatedly cited the same few operators in relation to CSE linked issues, when asked if any operators gave particular cause for concern in this regard, officers could not think of any. The case of Operator B Concerns were raised about this operator repeatedly in both Strategy and RA meeting minutes. Officers built a case (not based on CSE concerns) against the operator as ‘not a fit and proper person’, which was taken to the Licensing Board, which revoked both of the operator’s licences (for operating and driving). A magistrate’s court dismissed the operator’s appeal against the revocations. However, in advance of a further Crown Court hearing RMBC accepted a deal whereby the operator relinquished his operator’s licence, but kept his driver’s ‘badge’. Shortly afterwards a family member of his applied for an operator’s licence, which was granted and the operator continued trading under a new name. Officials continue to deal with the original operator on licensing matters. In effect the operator carried on under a new guise in full knowledge of the licensing team. Revocations and current practice Inspectors noted that only one of the four case studies handed over by RMBC showing revocations of licence (between 2009 and 2012) arose out of the investigation of a complaint. A mother complained after a driver followed her daughter home. Inspectors heard that the board initially refused to hear the case (because the daughter didn’t attend herself) and refused to keep the driver and complainant separate when the hearing took place. Three others followed notification from police of arrests so they acted upon that notification. Inspectors were also concerned at officers’ attitude towards limousines. Limousines with over eight seats come under the jurisdiction of VOSA, not the licensing authority, but CSE related concerns had been raised at both Strategy meetings and RA meetings about one particular company. The Licensing Authority expressed disquiet that Children’s Safeguarding had written to schools in advance of the prom season, advising parents that there had been CSE related concerns about limos. 117 This was seen as irregular and not based on ‘fact’, rather than an attempt to prevent a serious issue falling through a gap in RMBC’s jurisdiction. Inspectors noted that RA meetings are now chaired by a senior manager from the licensing section, who will exert ‘tighter control’ of the discussion and minutes. Inspectors also witnessed a discussion at a CSE tactical meeting in November 2014 during which a senior licensing manager challenged whether taxis and takeaways in Rotherham should be included as possible areas where CSE may be occurring. Both the Chair of the meeting and the CSE coordinator pointed out that taxi and takeaways were identified as a risk nationally and there had been a historic link with CSE in Rotherham. The senior manager did not accept that there was a current problem with CSE and taxis and takeaways. Inspectors are concerned that the services' refusal to accept a link with CSE is hampering its ability to take effective action, investigate complaints properly, share intelligence appropriately or contribute to building a composite picture enabling others to take action.