This is mainly bollocks
No, seriously, it's a tad long-winded - I mean, the term 'medical condition' and various variations in terms of description are used three time in the headline and within the first few paragraphs, and it all seems a bit padded out, and a bit of a non-story despite the provocative headline
At least the other two cases are a bit more proportionate in terms of length. And I think the third guy has been featured in a previous piece, but can't be bothered looking back.
Desperado alert for all three of them though, and kind of dafties the trade could do without
Hospital worker spotted 'cabbie standing outside his taxi carrying out sex act', meeting hearshttps://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/tees ... t-32183523The driver had his private hire licence revoked, despite his explanation that he had 'uncontrollable itching' from a medical condition on his genitalsA hospital worker reported seeing a taxi driver carrying out a sex act "in full view of members of the public", councillors have heard.
The cabbie said he suffered from a medical condition which caused "uncontrollable itching" to his genitals. However his explanation did not stop Middlesbrough Council from revoking his private hire licence in 2024.
An employee of James Cook University Hospital had reported that she and her partner witnessed the driver standing outside his taxi carrying out a sex act. In an interview, the cabbie told council officers he had "a medical condition affecting his genital area causing bobbles on his penis" causing him discomfort when sitting.
Details of the incident have been revealed in minutes of Stockton Council's general licensing committee from earlier this year. The unnamed motorist applied to Stockton Council for a hackney carriage and private hire driver licence, without declaring his previous licence or its revocation in Middlesbrough.
He later asked to withdrew his application, no longer wanting to be a licensed taxi driver for personal reasons. But Stockton's licensing committee decided "bearing in mind the seriousness of the concerns raised... it was proportionate and appropriate to determine the matter".
The driver had told Stockton Council licensing officers he did not know he had to declare the 2024 incident on his licence application. Asked to explain his actions, he denied the sexual act, saying: "I have a medical problem. I have a medical issue."
He showed officers medication used to treat skin infections, which he said was prescribed for his condition, caused by sweating in his underwear. He said the bobbles on his genital area were painful and he had to break them off.
He accepted it was not right to expose his genitals in a public place, regardless of his assertion it was a "human mistake", and it appeared the matter was not reported to the police. He told council officers: "I know it's not a joke.
"I know the responsibility and what needs to be done and what cannot be done when I'm wearing my badge. I'm fit to have a licence."
No other complaints were made about him to Middlesbrough Council during his 11 weeks as a taxi driver for them. He did not know the name of his medical condition and did not provide evidence of it before the committee hearing, which he did not attend.
'Completely unacceptable'Stockton Council's licensing committee said they "felt very strongly" that whether the driver was carrying out a sex act or itching, "either way it was completely unacceptable and wholly inappropriate to expose his genitals and behave in this way in public". They were concerned about his "lack of insight into his behaviour, which he appeared to minimise and dismiss as a mistake".
They said even evidence of a medical condition would not excuse his "completely unacceptable" actions. The minutes say: "Committee members were not satisfied that they would allow people for whom they care to enter a vehicle with [the applicant] due to their concerns regarding his inappropriate behaviour.
"The committee felt that this was compounded by [the applicant's] lack of remorse for such behaviour, and failure to declare that he had been previously licenced as a driver and subsequently revoked by Middlesbrough Council."
Refusing the application, they said: "Ultimately, the committee do not believe that [the applicant] was a fit and proper person to hold a private hire vehicle driver licence."
'Very odd'In a separate case, another driver re-applied for a private hire driver licence, which he previously held from 2018 until it expired in February 2024. A woman had made a report of "stalking" in October 2023, saying a minibus had been parked outside her house for hours, the driver asked workmen about who lived there and later pushed the front door open, then quickly left when told there was CCTV at the home.
The driver said he asked if the house was for sale but admitted his behaviour was "a bit weird" and "very odd", and was given a written warning at the time. The committee said they were also concerned about his failure to attend appointments and reluctance to take part in drug testing, showing "unusual behaviour", "obstructive conduct and unreliability", and unanimously decided to refuse his application.
In another case, a third driver asked for a private hire licence, having seen one revoked by Stockton Council in July 2024 following three complaints. First, it was alleged he hit another vehicle then left the scene, which he first denied saying he was at home asleep at the time, then said he "vaguely remembered" the incident but still denied the collision.
Next a member of the public alleged the taxi driver littered from his vehicle and behaved in an intimidating way towards her in front of her child, making her worry that he would "seek retribution". He denied littering or being aggressive. Finally, council CCTV was said to show his taxi "involved in facilitating drug dealing" before it was "driven towards the police car at speed and then on to a footpath to get away".
'Doubts surrounding his honesty'The committee which revoked his earlier licence said he overreacted and his "intimidating and distressing behaviour" was inappropriate in the littering incident. They found his son had been driving in the other two incidents, they were concerned at the dad's "lack of oversight of his son's unlawful use of his licensed vehicle", and found he was not credible under questioning.
He had also been given written warnings and advice at least six times, over issues including using a phone while driving, overcharging, his attitude, a conviction for shoplifting, and not wearing a seatbelt. As he sought to regain his licence, he brought three character references to the committee, apologising for his actions, expressing regret and saying the loss of the licence had a significant financial impact on him.
He said that at the time of the complaints his partner was suffering from cancer, he was "trying to keep everything together" and he tried to cover for his son, who was now mixing with a different crowd and going to college. He assured the committee he was an honest, fit and proper person and "never had any issues with anyone".
However the committee found him "disingenuous" and had a "lack of insight" into the past complaints, "which he appeared to minimise rather than accept". They found his apology genuine, but said they could not let people into a vehicle with him "due to their doubts surrounding his honesty and his past behaviour", unanimously refusing his application.
Login
Register
FAQ
