Taxi Driver Online

Not difficult to spot the mistake here, but it might help some readers if they actually read the article all the way through

Cab driver prosecuted for refusing to take passenger in wheelchair

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/m ... e-15679478

It is illegal for a taxi to refuse to take a passenger without a reasonable excuse

A cabbie has been fined for refusing to carry a passenger in a wheelchair.

Javid Akhtar Alum, 52, of Queenswood, Moseley, pleaded guilty to failing with a duty to carry a disabled person in a wheelchair.

He was ordered to pay £250 with added costs of £475 after being prosecuted by Birmingham City Council.

Alum was charged "as being the driver of a designated private hire vehicle, failed to comply with a duty imposed under section 165 of the Equality Act 2010 to carry a disabled person who was in a wheelchair while in a wheelchair."

Under section 165 of the Equality Act 2010 taxi drivers must ensure their cabs are wheelchair accessible, unless they have been issued with an exemption certificate.

The incident happened on May 19.

A council spokeswoman said: “On Thursday January 10, a taxi driver was prosecuted for refusing to take a wheelchair passenger in May 2018.

"The driver pleaded guilty to the charge of refusing to take a passenger in a wheelchair, contrary to section 165 of the Equality Act 2010 and was fined £250 with added costs of £475.

"The driver was driving a black cab."

"We want all of our citizens to be treated fairly and to stay safe when they’re travelling around the city. As such we will investigate any allegations like this and will not hesitate to prosecute if there is credible evidence."

Not sure but I do not think it makes a difference referring to the vehicle being a designated private hire vehicle in this prosecution.

Eh?

The charge refers to a "dedicated private hire vehicle", while the council said: "The driver was driving a black cab."

Can't be both, presumably? Why doesn't it make a difference - it's a basic contradiction of fact, unless I'm missing something?

Maybe the cab/car was black.

_________________
IDFIMH

A possibility, but since 99.9% of the time 'black cab' refers to a purpose built hackney carriage, you would think the council would be a bit more precise with their terminology.

Anyway, found this on Twitter about what happened. Quite a few tweets in the last few days involving the "Birmingham Taxi Cop" and Birmingham CC Licensing, but gist of it seems to be:














But presumably that's all about the case in the newspaper article. However, there is an inconsistency with the figures. The Taxi Cop says that fines and costs total £675, while the article says £725 (£250 fine and £475 costs), but maybe detail isn't their strong point, by the looks of things

I wonder if it was a Hackney working for a PH firm ? The word ‘designated’ could mean just that.

even so refusal wouldn't be an offence unless the vehicle was working as a hackney and was at a rank surely

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector