| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Lancaster taxi driver guilty of over-ranking http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=23143 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | captain cab [ Sat Oct 05, 2013 5:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Lancaster taxi driver guilty of over-ranking |
Lancaster taxi driver guilty of over-ranking A taxi driver has been found guilty in court of “over ranking” as the city council’s licensing manager is accused of “altering the status quo”. Keith Raby, 58, from Nether Kellet, pleaded not guilty to four charges of the offence, but was found guilty at Lancaster Magistrates Court last Friday. The charges were brought by Lancaster City Council, whose solicitor Luke Gorst showed CCTV footage to the court of Mr Raby, a Hackney Carriage driver in the city for 38 years, parked outside a designated rank in North Road on four seperate occasions in May and June. Wendy Peck, the city council’s licensing manager, said that there had been complaints from police about taxis causing obstructions, and that in the past enforcement by the council had not been very good. But Mr Raby’s solicitor Anthony Schiller told the court that a Freedom Of Information request sent to the city council asking for proof of correspondence with the police revealed that no official complaints had been made. Mr Raby said that the city council’s licensing committee had relaxed some rules in 2000, to help move people quickly out of the city centre at night. He added: “We’ve always had a good rapport with police and takeaways, as long as the town keeps moving.” But the city council maintained that Mr Raby had been in breach of the byelaw on each occasion. Mr Gorst also told the court that the informal relaxation of rules in 2000 was only to deal with a particular issue in a particular place, and could not be used as a defence. In cross-examining Mrs Peck, Mr Schiller said: “You’ve made life very difficult for drivers by altering the status quo that has been in place for 13 years. You’re enforcing this personally without telling the trade what you are doing.” Mrs Peck, who has been the city council’s licensing manager since February 2010, said that she warned Mr Raby following the first offence, and invited him to an interview under caution. Mr Raby said he asked to have his case heard in front of city councillors from the licensing act sub committee, but the court heard that Mrs Peck refused this. Questions were also raised about what Hackney Carriage drivers should do if ranks were full, as rules stated that after taking a fare, they should proceed to a rank, and if it’s full, they should go to the next available one. Mr Schiller said: “Do you expect drivers to just drive round the city centre looking for a space, and if they can’t find one, they just go home? The council has in the past given some leeway on this in the interest of public safety. There was a resolution to preserve the status quo. “There’s been no discussion about toughening up the policy in 118 meetings of the licensing committee.” Mrs Peck said that drivers were picking prime locations, which was causing problems. She added: “They can always proceed to Morecambe if there’s nothing in Lancaster.” Mr Schiller said: “The council has not provided additional facilities. There were other vehicles in those pictures as well. “Where are those vehicles? They’re not here today. It’s just Mr Raby.” Mr Raby was backed in court by the National Private Hire Association, which described the situation in Lancaster as “madness”. After three hours of deliberations, magistrates found Mr Raby guilty of breaching the byelaw, and gave him a £115 fine, with £270 costs. Afterwards, Jonathan Dixon, chair of the licensing committee, said there were enough ranks available within the district and the trade was formally made aware as far back as 2010 that the byelaws would be enforced. source: http://www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/news ... -1-6114757 |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Sat Oct 05, 2013 5:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Lancaster taxi driver guilty of over-ranking |
Guardian Comment: Engines overheat in taxi drivers’ row It seems that Hackney cab drivers in Lancaster have been getting a raw deal of late. United Utilities works at the bus station has resulted in the city’s main taxi rank being shunted to Dalton Square until 2015. Outside the gyratory system and far away from the city centre’s late night activities, as well as from those who have mobility issues, the move has been considered unfair and unworkable by many in the trade, and “not ideal” by everyone else. Drivers say their takings have fallen drastically since the move. Add to this the tightening up of rules about where a Hackney cab can or can’t wait for a fare and it’s fair to say many drivers have a bee in their bonnet. But there’s no getting away from the fact that rules must be observed – last week’s magistrates court verdict (page put that into perspective, despite protestations from the trade’s national representatives. The city council has a public duty to ensure the taxi trade is properly regulated, but also to ensure that there are enough taxi ranks available for self employed drivers. It would be great to see the council and the trade working together again. Tensions have certainly been high, but under the difficult circumstances, surely there’s a middle ground here? source: http://www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/news ... -1-6109302 |
|
| Author: | Nidge2 [ Sat Oct 05, 2013 5:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Lancaster taxi driver guilty of over-ranking |
What section have they found him guilty of? |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Sat Oct 05, 2013 5:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Lancaster taxi driver guilty of over-ranking |
Nidge2 wrote: What section have they found him guilty of? byelaws - the model ones basically say if one rank is full, move onto the next |
|
| Author: | Nidge2 [ Sat Oct 05, 2013 7:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Lancaster taxi driver guilty of over-ranking |
captain cab wrote: Nidge2 wrote: What section have they found him guilty of? byelaws - the model ones basically say if one rank is full, move onto the next Ah now where have I heard that before? |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Lancaster taxi driver guilty of over-ranking |
captain cab wrote: Wendy Peck, the city council’s licensing manager, said that there had been complaints from police about taxis causing obstructions, and that in the past enforcement by the council had not been very good. But Mr Raby’s solicitor Anthony Schiller told the court that a Freedom Of Information request sent to the city council asking for proof of correspondence with the police revealed that no official complaints had been made. In other words someone is telling lies. captain cab wrote: Mr Raby said he asked to have his case heard in front of city councillors from the licensing act sub committee, but the court heard that Mrs Peck refused this. Democracy at it's very worst. |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Lancaster taxi driver guilty of over-ranking |
Quote: backed in court by the National Private Hire Association Second defeat in Lancaster in 6 months
|
|
| Author: | grandad [ Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Lancaster taxi driver guilty of over-ranking |
captain cab wrote: Quote: backed in court by the National Private Hire Association Second defeat in Lancaster in 6 months ![]() Are you sugesting that the NTA would have fared better? Or was the case un-winable? |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Lancaster taxi driver guilty of over-ranking |
grandad wrote: Are you sugesting that the NTA would have fared better? Or was the case un-winable? No, I'm stating its a second defeat for the NPHA in Lancaster in 6 months - however you raise a good point - the driver was actually guilty of over ranking, he pleaded not guilty and was obviously beaten in court - presumably because the question of ranking spaces is a separate question entirely.......despite what the NPHA may think. However, this goes to prove the value of being advised by people who you want (and who will) agree with you despite all of the evidence suggesting you were actually over ranking and you were actually breaking byelaws by not proceeding to the nearest available rank. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|