| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Another cabby ignores the DDA http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10399 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Sussex [ Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Another cabby ignores the DDA |
Taxi driver admits refusing to take disabled woman A TAXI driver has been left shamed after refusing to transport a disabled woman. Dad-of-two Syed Ahmed told the 69-year-old woman that he didn’t know how to use the ramp to get her wheelchair into his vehicle. But a court was told this was not true. The incident left the woman, who suffers from cerebral palsy, very upset and sparked an investigation by Gateshead Council. Council legal chiefs decided to prosecute Ahmed under an 1846 Act which applies to Hackney Carriage licences. At Gateshead Magistrates’ Court, Ahmed, 60, of Windsor Avenue, Bensham, Gateshead, pleaded guilty to refusing to drive his Hackney Carriage when requested by a passenger. Prosecutor Jenny Rook said the case arose from an incident in July when Sylvia Kirkley and her carer approached Ahmed, who was first in line at the taxi rank outside the Tesco store in Ellison Street in Gateshead town centre. He got out of his cab and told her he couldn’t take them because he didn’t know how to use the ramp and could only transport people who could walk. He then told them to get the taxi behind. Miss Kirkley told investigators: “I was very upset and started to cry. This made me feel horrible and helpless.” Ahmed was originally found guilty in his absence in November, but then successfully applied to the court to reopen the case and plead not guilty. However, before a trial took place he changed his plea to guilty. At the November hearing the court was told he initially said he didn’t know how to operate the ramp. He then confessed he did know how to, but claimed he could not do it because he had an injured shoulder. He was asked to produce a doctor’s note for investigators, which he did and this confirmed he did not have an injury. Michael Gibson, defending, said Ahmed denied the offence, but changed his plea because he appreciates what happened had a considerable effect on the passenger. Ahmed, he said, is married with two children and has no previous convictions. His family, said Mr Gibson, struggle to manage on £229 a week in benefits and he became a taxi driver to help pay for his car, but since the incident he has retired and someone else has taken over his taxi driving duties. “He is well aware of the effect his actions had on the victim and bitterly regrets this,” added Mr Gibson. Magistrates gave Ahmed a conditional discharge for six months and ordered him to pay £100 compensation to the victim. He must also pay £400 towards the council’s £1,500 legal bill. |
|
| Author: | grandad [ Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The title of this thread is misleading. He was not prosecuted for ignoring the DDA. He was prosecuted under 1847 legislation. The DDA did not exist in 1847. |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Wed Jan 07, 2009 7:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
grandad wrote: The title of this thread is misleading. He was not prosecuted for ignoring the DDA. He was prosecuted under 1847 legislation. The DDA did not exist in 1847.
But for the DDA he wouldn't have had a WAV. And it's the DDA that allows him an exemption, not the 1847 act. |
|
| Author: | JD [ Wed Jan 07, 2009 7:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Another cabby ignores the DDA |
Sussex wrote: A TAXI driver has been left shamed after refusing to transport a disabled woman
NVQ fodder. Regards JD |
|
| Author: | wannabeeahack [ Wed Jan 07, 2009 7:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Ahmed, he said, is married with two children, struggle to manage on £229 a week in benefits
plus rent/rates paid... whats the JSA for a family of four? |
|
| Author: | skippy41 [ Wed Jan 07, 2009 7:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
wannabeeahack wrote: Quote: Ahmed, he said, is married with two children, struggle to manage on £229 a week in benefits plus rent/rates paid... whats the JSA for a family of four? FFS that £59 PW more than her indoors takes and we still have the council tax and mortgage to pay |
|
| Author: | bloodnock [ Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
skippy41 wrote: wannabeeahack wrote: Quote: Ahmed, he said, is married with two children, struggle to manage on £229 a week in benefits plus rent/rates paid... whats the JSA for a family of four? FFS that £59 PW more than her indoors takes and we still have the council tax and mortgage to pay Maybe Ahmed needs more money than the rest of us so he can send send some to poorer relatives back home..where ever that might be??..Great things Benefit payments as they can go a long way 
|
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sussex wrote: grandad wrote: The title of this thread is misleading. He was not prosecuted for ignoring the DDA. He was prosecuted under 1847 legislation. The DDA did not exist in 1847. But for the DDA he wouldn't have had a WAV. And it's the DDA that allows him an exemption, not the 1847 act. Refusing to be hired thats in the 1847 act aint it? CC |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
captain cab wrote: Sussex wrote: grandad wrote: The title of this thread is misleading. He was not prosecuted for ignoring the DDA. He was prosecuted under 1847 legislation. The DDA did not exist in 1847. But for the DDA he wouldn't have had a WAV. And it's the DDA that allows him an exemption, not the 1847 act. Refusing to be hired thats in the 1847 act aint it? But it was based on their disability. |
|
| Author: | GBC [ Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Another cabby ignores the DDA |
Sussex wrote: At the November hearing the court was told he initially said he didn’t know how to operate the ramp. He then confessed he did know how to, but claimed he could not do it because he had an injured shoulder. He was asked to produce a doctor’s note for investigators, which he did and this confirmed he did not have an injury.
The word 'Knob' comes to mind. 
|
|
| Author: | toots [ Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Another cabby ignores the DDA |
GBC wrote: Sussex wrote: At the November hearing the court was told he initially said he didn’t know how to operate the ramp. He then confessed he did know how to, but claimed he could not do it because he had an injured shoulder. He was asked to produce a doctor’s note for investigators, which he did and this confirmed he did not have an injury. The word 'Knob' comes to mind. Mmmmmmmm 'boll*x' sprung to mind when I read it 'complete and utter' no less |
|
| Author: | JD [ Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The driver should have been charged under section 36 of the 1995 DDA which has scope for a higher penalty. Regards JD |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|