Taxi Driver Online

Where to start with this? It was published very early on 2 January, so must have been written on 1 January or even earlier. Yet they can submit an FOI request to the councils about stuff over the whole of *2021*, the councils are expected to compile the figures, send them back, and the paper expects the figures to include whether drivers were convicted of an offence on 30 December, say?

To be fair, the responding councils seem to have either said they can't comply for cost reasons, or haven't included the whole of 2021, for obvious reasons. Anyways...


Number of taxi driver complaints and convictions in Cheshire revealed

https://www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/ch ... s-22583257

Cheshire councils have supplied the figures following a request under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000

There have been a total of 153 complaints against taxi drivers across all four boroughs in Cheshire in 2021, according to figures supplied by the councils.

The number was revealed in response to requests under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000 made to Cheshire West and Chester, Cheshire East, Warrington and Halton councils.

The authorities were all asked two questions - how many registered taxi drivers were subject to complaints and how many taxi drivers were convicted of crimes during 2021.

In terms of complaints, Cheshire West and Chester reported the most with 77, while Warrington recorded 58, followed by Cheshire East with 13 and Halton on five.

The only council to confirm a conviction during 2021 was Halton with one, while Cheshire East and Warrington had none.

Cheshire West and Chester Council responded by saying it would take 'approximately 50 hours' to gather the information for the number of convictions, which 'exceeds the appropriate limit under section 12 of the Freedom of information Act 2000'.

Below are the responses sent by each local authority to both questions.

Cheshire West and Chester

- 01/01/2021 to 01/12/2021 there have been 77 recorded complaints against licenced drivers and vehicles.

- The council's statement of hackney and private hire policy provides guidance on applicants with criminal convictions as to whether they will be licenced or not - https://www.cheshirewestandchester.gov. ... nsing.aspx.

If an applicant does have a conviction and is granted a licence, it is recorded on their personal file. This information is not reportable and to extract it would require a manual review of each licence holders file to report convictions.

There are currently 1,523 records which would take on average two minutes per file to check for convictions. This would take approximately 50 hours to complete and exceeds the appropriate limit under section 12 of the Freedom of information Act 2000.

This is currently £450 or approximately 2.5 days of one person’s time.

Cheshire East

- The number of complaints registered against taxi driver licence records (from January 1 2021 to date) is 13.

- None (convictions).

Warrington

- 58 (complaints).

- None by the Licensing Enforcement Team.

Halton

- There have been five complaints about taxi drivers in 2021.

- We are aware that one taxi driver has been convicted of an offence in 2021.

Fair disparity in the numbers there, but I've heard Chesire West and Chester is full of rogues, but Halton drivers are absolute angels

Anyway, three councils responded to the request about convictions over (almost) the whole of 2021, and only *one* conviction was recorded?

I wonder how they define 'conviction'. I suspect it's quite a high bar

So rather than checking each driver's file, isn't there another way they could find out the number of convictions against drivers in 2021?

I mean, the other three councils only recorded *one* conviction in total, so surely it wouldn't have taken one person working on it for more than a week to find out the numbers convicted in CWAC?

Don't they have some kind of, er, list of driver convictions other than what's on individual driver files?

Cheap clickbait journalism of the lowest kind.

I'm delighted some councils have said f*** off and leave us alone.

Lazy clueless journalist would have been better FoI'ing the police, but that would need a person with a brain to think about that.

But what if the replies said there were dozens, most of those would lose their licenses so readers of that rag would be concerned for no good reason.

Just think the taxpayer has actually subsidised this journalist through university and this is what we get.

Maybe a better article would be to highlight all the money taxpayers have pi**ed up the wall subsidising fools.

_________________
IDFIMH