| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| 'Cabbie' banned for having no licence http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10725 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | captain cab [ Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | 'Cabbie' banned for having no licence |
'Cabbie' banned for having no licence Shields Gazette! A 'CABBIE' has been banned from the road for taking passengers despite not having a taxi licence or insurance. South Tyneside magistrates heard how Kirpa Singh used his unlicensed Vauxhall Vectra to make 281 taxi journeys over seven weeks. Singh, 20, worked as a hackney carriage driver until last year, but he gave up his licence to become a private hire driver for Express Taxis, based in Farnham Road, South Shields. However, the court heard, Singh failed to apply for a private hire licence and, by the time he started his new job, his vehicle insurance with Norwich Union had also ran out. Angus Taylor, prosecuting, said: "Someone notified South Tyneside Council that Mr Singh's cab did not have a taxi licence plate on it. "Further inquiries were made, and it was revealed that not only did Mr Singh's car not have a taxi licence, but he did not have any vehicle insurance either. "Between September 2, 2008, and October 19, 2008, all his journeys were made with no insurance or no taxi licence. "Who knows what the consequences would have been if there had been an accident." Singh, of Stanhope Road, South Shields, pleaded guilty to both offences. He was banned from driving for four months and fined £250, with £85 costs. Magistrates heard that Singh was of good character and "knows what he did was wrong". Kevin Smallcombe, defending, said: "He works very hard for long hours, and is the breadwinner in his house. "He is a thoroughly decent person who has made a mistake and has apologised for this. "No fare-paying member of the public was put at risk at any point. "He is now registered and holds the plate for this." Express Taxis refused to comment. |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I wonder if the PH operator will have to appear? CC |
|
| Author: | JD [ Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I find it hard to believe this state of affairs. There is no excuse for an operator not to be aware of the licesning status of vehicles and drivers. A council should consider revoking operator licenses where there is clear evidence of duplicity. Regards JD |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
JD wrote: I find it hard to believe this state of affairs. There is no excuse for an operator not to be aware of the licesning status of vehicles and drivers.
A council should consider revoking operator licenses where there is clear evidence of duplicity. Regards JD 
This job would be a whole lot better if the Op's were made to be aware that they are accountable. CC |
|
| Author: | JD [ Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
This guy did 281 jobs without a plate on the back of his vehicle and the operator was complicit by not only employing him in the first place but allowing him to continue working knowing that he wasn't licensed and therefore also knowing that he wasn't insured. If thats not putting passengers at risk I don't know what is? Regards JD |
|
| Author: | wannabeeahack [ Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
he must be due to lose his PH badge as an "unfit person" now surely?... |
|
| Author: | Stationtone [ Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The should make an example of him and give him a seat on the council |
|
| Author: | JD [ Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The first thing I would do if I was an operator who had just allowed an owner to join my circuit would be to take a photocopy of all his documentation and then contact the council to make sure the documentation was up to date. I can't understand why that did not happen in this case. Regards JD |
|
| Author: | Stationtone [ Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Is it not the case that the ph office would not be guilty of any crime so did not bother if he had proper licence |
|
| Author: | JD [ Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
stationtone wrote: Is it not the case that the ph office would not be guilty of any crime so did not bother if he had proper licence
The private hire operator is guilty of an offence on both counts relating to owner and driver. Regards JD |
|
| Author: | JD [ Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
no person shall in a controlled district operate any vehicle as a private hire vehicle without having a current licence under section 55 of this Act; (e) no person licensed under the said section 55 shall in a controlled district operate any vehicle as a private hire vehicle— **(i) if for the vehicle a current licence under the said section 48 is not in force; or (ii) if the driver does not have a current licence under the said section 51.** (2) If any person knowingly contravenes the provisions of this section, he shall be guilty of an offence. Regards JD |
|
| Author: | Stationtone [ Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I learn something new every time i visit forum thank you |
|
| Author: | JD [ Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
stationtone wrote: I learn something new every time i visit forum thank you
Me too. lol Regards JD |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
stationtone wrote: I learn something new every time i visit forum thank you
I think it is worth pointing out JD's post relates to England and Wales, not Scotland. Just yet. 
|
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
JD wrote: Me too. lol Regards JD Yes JD, but dont tell anyone
regards CC |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|