Taxi Driver Online

Well this is all very vague and secret squirrel


Ipswich taxi driver stripped of licence for causing incident

https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/2531 ... -incident/

A taxi driver has been stripped of their licence for allegedly causing a serious incident and failing to report it.

Ipswich Borough Council was forced to revoke the licence of the individual on Wednesday, July 2, after being informed by Suffolk police of the incident.

Due to the severity of the alleged incident, the council did not consider any other option but to take away the licence of the individual.

The driver did not disclose the incident to the council, and had a series of written warnings from the council beforehand.

The name of the driver has not been disclosed, nor have the details of the incident.

The driver may appeal the decision to Suffolk Magistrates' Court.

Council documents detailing the decision said: "An allegation was received from a police force that a serious accident had been caused by a combined hackney carriage/private hire driver.

"The driver had not made the council aware of this alleged incident as they are required to do.

"The driver also had a number of written warnings regarding their driving standards previously which show a pattern of potentially dangerous behaviour.

"No alternative options were considered due to the serious nature of the alleged accident."

OK, so precisely what was supposed to be disclosed to the council here, based on what's disclosed in the article above?

I suspect the council is aware of it now, via the police, but the general public won't become aware unless he appeals the revocation or is charged with the matters that the police informed the council of.

As we have discussed in the past, driver licensing decisions are not held in public. Which is why many driver licensing decisions aren't decided by committee, but by officials via delegated powers.

_________________
IDFIMH

So no one's willing to answer my question, as opposed to answering a question different to the one I posed, or giving a politician-style answer?

Anyway, I had a look at the official papers to see if they shed any light, but the press article is just a copy and paste job, as far as I can see

But what I'm getting at is this in the Ipswich driver's conditions:


I daresay it's just a case of the official sub-committee papers not being precise enough.

But based on the press report, what precisely was the driver obliged to inform the council about?

Maybe he received a caution or a driving conviction, which in itself shouldn't lead to a revocation.

But if the fella has a history of iffyness, then maybe this was the last straw.

_________________
IDFIMH

Indeed, Sussex, and what's often portrayed as quite anodyne in official papers can in reality be something quite serious

(Or, of course, something quite anodyne in reality can be made to sound quite serious by officialdom )

Anyway, returning to my original question - it's not made clear precisely what the driver was deemed to have not disclosed to the council. There's nothing about any specific caution, conviction or FPN. Nor anything about any arrest or charge...

So what precisely was he duty bound to disclose to the council?

Of course, there very probably was something in terms of the license conditions above that the driver should have disclosed to the council.

But you'd think that if they're reporting that they revoked a driver partly because he didn't disclose something to the council, then they'd be a bit more specific about precisely what he failed to disclose