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

Advice accepted
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1837		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  captain cab [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Advice accepted
I know of a PH driver who has some less than desirable allegations made against him, indeed the police are investigating.

A PH firm has been asked by the LA to dispense with the drivers services.

What would you do?

Regards

Captain Cab
Author:  Sussex [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Advice accepted
captain cab wrote:
I know of a PH driver who has some less than desirable allegations made against him, indeed the police are investigating.

A PH firm has been asked by the LA to dispense with the drivers services.

What would you do?

Not happy with the council passing their buck, but I suppose it depends on the nature of the allegations.

If they are of a sexual nature, then I think the firm has no choice but to suspend him until the police charge or not.

If it's not that then maybe the firm could offer him a job on the phones or get him to deliver cards or flyers.

But whatever they choose, rather them than me. :sad:
Author:  captain cab [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
Jeez, I know what the answer would have been if I said I wanted more taxis in a limited area! :wink:

Cant a LA suspend a drivers license on the grounds of reasonable cause?

Section 61 (b) I think

Captain Cab
Author:  Sussex [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
captain cab wrote:
Cant a LA suspend a drivers license on the grounds of reasonable cause?

Section 61 (b) I think

They could do that, but the driver could then get an injunction to reverse that decision. Which I suspect is why they have asked the firm to do their dirty work. :sad:
Author:  captain cab [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 9:05 pm ]
Post subject: 
Thanks for the advice sussex, I'll pass it on

Captain Cab
Author:  Harold Best [ Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
captain cab wrote:
Thanks for the advice sussex, I'll pass it on

Captain Cab


(Outside in the real world there is this rule, a man is innocent until prooved guilty, only U.K offices of our trade ignore this rule)
Author:  Sussex [ Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
Harold Best wrote:
(Outside in the real world there is this rule, a man is innocent until prooved guilty, only U.K offices of our trade ignore this rule)

I'm grateful for that advice Harold.

Thankfully you don't have a duty of care, which allows you to have such views. :?
Author:  Harold Best [ Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:01 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sussex wrote:
Harold Best wrote:
(Outside in the real world there is this rule, a man is innocent until prooved guilty, only U.K offices of our trade ignore this rule)

I'm grateful for that advice Harold.

Thankfully you don't have a duty of care, which allows you to have such views. :?



I certainly have, a Local Authority and an employer has a massive responsibility, in these matters.

If a person is a danger to the general public, its not for the Local Authority to stop him working but for police and magistrates to remove that risk.

if there is insufficient evidence to hold him behind bars, there is insufficient evidence to stop him working, unless that condition is placed by magistrates

think about it!
Author:  Sussex [ Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
Harold Best wrote:
If a person is a danger to the general public, its not for the Local Authority to stop him working but for police and magistrates to remove that risk.

So you would be happy getting into a vehicle driven by someone with 11 points on his license, cos the courts haven't removed his license?

So you would be happy to employ ex convicts, because the courts have finished with him?

Why do you think the statutes allow councils to refuse a license, if only the courts can do it?

Would you be happy if your family was driven home by someone on remand for a sexual offence?
Author:  Harold Best [ Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
I am stating the law as it is not how you would like it!

first of all he has a license, granted by the LA, now there are allegations?

ok bring him to justice, charge him, change that status, but to remove a livelyhood on unsubstansiated rumour?

come , come!
Author:  Sussex [ Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
Harold Best wrote:
I am stating the law as it is not how you would like it!

first of all he has a license, granted by the LA, now there are allegations?

ok bring him to justice, charge him, change that status, but to remove a livelyhood on unsubstansiated rumour?

Well I'm not quite sure who mentioned 'unsubstansiated rumour', but if it was then you might have a point.

However if the council have asked the firm to be rid of the chap, then the council had best have more than a 'unsubstansiated rumour', or else it could cost them serious money.

I suspect this chap is up for serious charges, the police have forwarded the info to the council, who in turn have asked the firm to act. I very much all this has happened over a 'unsubstansiated rumour'.
Author:  Harold Best [ Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sussex wrote:
Harold Best wrote:
I am stating the law as it is not how you would like it!

first of all he has a license, granted by the LA, now there are allegations?

ok bring him to justice, charge him, change that status, but to remove a livelyhood on unsubstansiated rumour?

Well I'm not quite sure who mentioned 'unsubstansiated rumour', but if it was then you might have a point.

However if the council have asked the firm to be rid of the chap, then the council had best have more than a 'unsubstansiated rumour', or else it could cost them serious money.

I suspect this chap is up for serious charges, the police have forwarded the info to the council, who in turn have asked the firm to act. I very much all this has happened over a 'unsubstansiated rumour'.





It wont cost the Local Authority anything! just imagine a phone call about you!

serious money is if they suspend the license, and they are wrong, thats why they dont want to do it!

never mind chineese whispers lets have solid written information this case stinks to the high heavens.
Author:  Sussex [ Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:09 am ]
Post subject: 
Mr Best you remind me of an old friend. :shock:

now ou could that bee. :lol:
Author:  paulmills [ Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:46 am ]
Post subject: 
It is wrong for the local authority to pass the buck! If they have been informed by the Police that they are investigating a 'serious' allegation they should be suspending the driver using Sec 61(1)(b) of the LG(MP)Act 1976..any other reasonable cause, and supporting their action with the case of Leeds City Council v Hussain ( which states that there is no need for a conclusion of reasonable chance of conviction before driver could be suspended)
Author:  Harold Best [ Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
paulmills wrote:
It is wrong for the local authority to pass the buck! If they have been informed by the Police that they are investigating a 'serious' allegation they should be suspending the driver using Sec 61(1)(b) of the LG(MP)Act 1976..any other reasonable cause, and supporting their action with the case of Leeds City Council v Hussain ( which states that there is no need for a conclusion of reasonable chance of conviction before driver could be suspended)



A point I tried to make, though a local authority officer must at all times be reasonable

:lol:
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/