Taxi Driver Online
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

Appeal falls on deaf ears
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12946
Page 1 of 1

Author:  captain cab [ Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Appeal falls on deaf ears

Old news but quite interesting :wink:

07 April 2008: Appeal falls on deaf ears
A Bury Hackney carriage driver had a fruitless trip to Bury after failing to get his licence back at Magistrates Court on Wednesday April 2.

Shanawaz Raja lost his licence for overcharging his customers. He was forced to withdraw his appeal and landed himself with a £500 bill for costs into the bargain.

Mr Raja parted company with his solicitor part way through his appeal case and appeared without the aid of an interpreter despite court direction that he provide an interpreter at his own expense if one was needed.

Mr Raja was accompanied by the chairman of the Hackney carriage association Mr Charles Oakes who tried to persuade the Court's legal adviser that he should be allowed to represent Mr Raja despite being unqualified. Mr Oakes' attempt to act for Mr Raja fell at the first hurdle as he was asked by Helen Fox, the court's legal adviser if he was a solicitor and when it was discovered he was not, he was told in summary language that he could not do as he asked. He then proceeded to run out of court without accepting the documented evidence offered to him by the council's solicitor.

Outside the court Mr Oakes abused the council's solicitor and was given a warning by the Court Usher that if he was abusive or obstructive he would be held in contempt of court.

When the case was heard the defendant proceeded to tell the court that he could not afford to pay and costs and that he could not understand English, despite his earlier admission that he worked on the telephones for a private hire firm and he had been employed as a taxi driver.

Mr Raja had appealed against his conviction for overcharging and his suspension from holding a hackney driver's licence on no fewer than three previous occasions. Bury Council incurred £4,522.40 of costs in dealing with those.

The court ordered that Mr Raja pay £500.00 in costs to Bury Council which he was ordered to pay at £10.00 per week.

Author:  brightonbreezy [ Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Appeal falls on deaf ears

captain cab wrote:
Old news but quite interesting :wink:

07 April 2008: Appeal falls on deaf ears
A Bury Hackney carriage driver had a fruitless trip to Bury after failing to get his licence back at Magistrates Court on Wednesday April 2.

Shanawaz Raja lost his licence for overcharging his customers. He was forced to withdraw his appeal and landed himself with a £500 bill for costs into the bargain.

Mr Raja parted company with his solicitor part way through his appeal case and appeared without the aid of an interpreter despite court direction that he provide an interpreter at his own expense if one was needed.

Mr Raja was accompanied by the chairman of the Hackney carriage association Mr Charles Oakes who tried to persuade the Court's legal adviser that he should be allowed to represent Mr Raja despite being unqualified. Mr Oakes' attempt to act for Mr Raja fell at the first hurdle as he was asked by Helen Fox, the court's legal adviser if he was a solicitor and when it was discovered he was not, he was told in summary language that he could not do as he asked. He then proceeded to run out of court without accepting the documented evidence offered to him by the council's solicitor.

Outside the court Mr Oakes abused the council's solicitor and was given a warning by the Court Usher that if he was abusive or obstructive he would be held in contempt of court.

When the case was heard the defendant proceeded to tell the court that he could not afford to pay and costs and that he could not understand English, despite his earlier admission that he worked on the telephones for a private hire firm and he had been employed as a taxi driver.

Mr Raja had appealed against his conviction for overcharging and his suspension from holding a hackney driver's licence on no fewer than three previous occasions. Bury Council incurred £4,522.40 of costs in dealing with those.

The court ordered that Mr Raja pay £500.00 in costs to Bury Council which he was ordered to pay at £10.00 per week.


When you get the hump with someone you get the hump don't you! :lol:

Author:  captain cab [ Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:22 pm ]
Post subject: 

This free representation is beginning to look a tad expensive :wink:

CC

Author:  grandad [ Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:17 pm ]
Post subject: 

Nice work Charles! :wink:

Author:  Chilon of Sparta [ Sun Nov 29, 2009 5:44 pm ]
Post subject: 

Have you resorted to attacking your own former senior members/spokespersons CC?!! NO...REALLY!...take a look at this portion of a letter, which has been "lifted" from, I believe, a letter to Burnley Council...

"In Summary

.....This association and along with region 5 & 6 of the National Taxi Association to which I am the Secretary of region 5 & 6, are against any compulsory training......

Yours Sincerely

C Oakes
"

:shock: :shock: :shock:

http://www.burnley.gov.uk/downloads/Voc ... ndix_E.pdf

Please explain CC!!! :wink:


Whilst we are bear baiting, you may as well take a look at this other fine example (link below) of how to fully prepare your case (particularly page 4, where a bemused council find that Mr Oakes "evidence" is possibly not quite as solid as he had claimed).

http://burydem.bury.gov.uk/aksbury/images/att12107.doc

:lol:

Author:  captain cab [ Sun Nov 29, 2009 5:54 pm ]
Post subject: 

I'm sorry Chilton its Sunday and we got an away draw in the cup to Everton.

I suppose Mr Oakes could use a similar type of argument for the doblo type vehicle he wants to see licensed in a deregulated area.

I reallt cannot comment on what Mr Oakes stated with reference to training, I have my opinion and the NTA have theirs. :wink:

CC

Author:  dagger [ Sun Nov 29, 2009 7:01 pm ]
Post subject: 

grandad wrote:
Nice work Charles! :wink:
Is that the guy from Bolton who posts on here?

Author:  Nigel [ Sun Nov 29, 2009 7:52 pm ]
Post subject: 

I couldn't make head nor tail of that letter. :roll: :roll: :roll:

Author:  gusmac [ Sun Nov 29, 2009 7:53 pm ]
Post subject: 

captain cab wrote:
This free representation is beginning to look a tad expensive :wink:

CC


I suppose you get what you pay for :lol:

Author:  captain cab [ Sun Nov 29, 2009 8:42 pm ]
Post subject: 

gusmac wrote:
captain cab wrote:
This free representation is beginning to look a tad expensive :wink:

CC


I suppose you get what you pay for :lol:


I suppose you get what others pay for perhaps :sad:

CC

Author:  Doom [ Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:11 am ]
Post subject: 

"When the case was heard the defendant proceeded to tell the court that he could not afford to pay and costs and that he could not understand English, despite his earlier admission that he worked on the telephones for a private hire firm and he had been employed as a taxi driver. "


ME NO UNDERSTANDY, ME NO UNDERSTANDY!

Understands that £7 for a £4 ride is a nice little earner though doesn't he.

Author:  captain cab [ Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:43 pm ]
Post subject: 

I think the question needs asked about how the hell someone supposed to be representing the trade can defend someone like this ?

Three appeals costs over four grand and he still loses his badge and sacks his brief and then his rep doesn't even know the rules of the court?

An absolute farce.

CC

Author:  MR T [ Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
He then proceeded to run out of court without accepting the documented evidence offered to him by the council's solicitor.
I know Charlie.... and I don't think he can run.... neither can I by the way...

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/