Taxi Driver Online

Taxi driver’s licence revoked

https://tunbridgewells.gov.uk/news/2024 ... ce-revoked

Magistrates in Medway have upheld a decision by the council to revoke a taxi driver’s licence in the interests of public safety at an appeal hearing on 26 April 2024.

The driver was appealing the council’s decision to revoke his licence in May 2023 when it was discovered he had not reported important information, including being remanded to prison, to licensing officers. The council’s Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Policy requires drivers to follow a strict code of conduct and advises them they must disclose significant information which is detailed in the policy.

On learning of the non-disclosure, the council’s Head of Housing, Health and Environment revoked the licence. The revocation was made in the interest of public safety and had immediate effect.

Speaking after the court hearing a member of the council’s Licensing team said: ‘When people get into a taxi, they want to feel safe and therefore, as you would expect, the council holds taxi and private hire drivers to high standards. As this case shows we will take action if drivers licensed by this authority choose to disregard them.’

In upholding the council’s decision magistrates also awarded costs of £3,252 to the council.

_________________
IDFIMH

Another hopeless looking appeal.

Would be interesting to know what happened with the case, though - he could have been entirely innocent, and the revocation upheld simply because he didn't declare he was on remand

I thought the last line of the thread Sussex posted kind of gave it away.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

being remanded to prison would suggest he was accused of something serious so innocent or not it should have been reported and of that he is 100% guilty

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

People who are:

a) selectively quoting what I said; or

b) somehow imagining I was claiming something that I hadn't said;

please reread what I said

This is that which you posted in full.

Perhaps you would consider the tenses you used.

The first sentence includes "looking", it isn't looking, it's been "looked at". Did you mean perhaps "Another hopeless appeal"?

With regard to the second sentence, we know "what happened" his Licence was revoked.

Should we second guess the whole of your post to see that without stating it, your question in the second sentence wasn't about the obvious outcome of the LA decision, rather the unreported (as far as I know) proceedings at the first Court case and not this, later, Magistrates Court, which was his Appeal? If that is the case, the lack of clarity is entirely down to you. Getting the tense incorrectly in the first statement you made added to the misapprehension that I, and no doubt others, have made about your meaning in your second sentence.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

Chris, my 'hopeless looking' tense was meant with regard to when I/we were looking at it - the case/hearing/appeal or whatever, had self-evidently already happened. To that extent I assumed readers would construe 'hopeless-looking' in terms of reading it on here. In fact, I didn't think about it at all, because I was preoccupied in thinking about whether or not to hyphenate 'hopeless-looking'

But this is the way I meant it, and this is one of the top results in Google, and is clearly not meant in the present tense ('last weekend', blah, blah):


'Sad' man rants Leeds city centre is 'depressing and hopeless'

The ranting man and his wife were left saddened by the 'hopeless' looking city centre while shopping last weekend


I would have thought the tense was obvious from the context - for example, if someone posted a video of an incident of violence, I don't think it would be inappropriate to say that it was an 'awful looking' incident, and it would be obvious from the context that the incident happened in the past.

(And, for what it's worth, the word 'looking' was simply intended to underline that it was my opinion rather than straightforward statement of fact.)

But I'll try to pay more attention to my tense in future

Can't see any ambiguity there, and it's all in the past tense. I assumed anyone reading had already read Sussex's post, and that, together with the words 'revocation upheld' (ie the civil/revocation stuff) because he 'didn't declare he was on remand' (ie the criminal stuff) meant that when I asked what had 'happened with the case' I was meaning the criminal case rather than the licence revocation stuff and appeal to the magistrates'.

And, of course, I was assuming that the average reader (particularly someone as astute as yourself) would know what I was on about without spelling everything out, but maybe adding the a few more words would help clarify (but which I kind of thought my use of the word 'innocent' would convey, because that's a word more associated with criminal rather than civil/quasi-judicial proceedings (guilty v innocent, and all that)).

Therefore (and there's nothing removed from here - just a few words added):


(And, again, the above assumes that anyone reading has already read Sussex's post, and also assumes a certain amount of knowledge about licensing law and criminal proceedings, blah, blah...)

Oh, and Edders, since we're getting very nitpicking about licensing procedures and criminal/civil stuff etc, Chris may not like the fact you said the chap was '100% guilty' with regard to not declaring his remand status to the council

'Guilty' is a word associated with criminal stuff, not civil/quasi-judicial proceedings - you can't be found 'guilty' by a licensing committee. Or innocent