Taxi Driver Online

Dispute over ‘soiling’ charge leads to review of rules on private hires in East Renfrewshire

https://www.barrheadnews.com/news/17517 ... frewshire/

A PRIVATE hire driver locked a student in his car before abandoning her at a petrol station after a row over a soiling charge.

The driver, who operates in East Renfrewshire, demanded cash from the girl after claiming one of her group vomited in his vehicle.

When the girl, who disputed the claim, didn’t have £40 to hand, he locked his doors and took her to a nearby petrol station.

She sought safety in the shop until the driver left, leaving her to walk home alone.

The incident was revealed in a report to councillors yesterday as the girl’s parents called for private hire rules on soiling charges to change.

Licensing chiefs were set to rule on any law changes or possible action against the driver but yesterday’s meeting was adjourned after late witness submissions were received.

The girl’s mother said: “This is an extremely important situation. What happened to our daughter is a very serious matter for all females in East Renfrewshire.

“This took place in August. Six months down the road, there may be vulnerable females in East Renfrewshire.”

The incident occurred as a group of female students were returning to Newton Mearns after a night out in Glasgow.

A report says the driver reacted in an “unpleasant manner” after a passenger was allegedly sick.

When only one passenger was remaining, he demanded the soiling charge.

Gerry Mahon, the council’s chief officer for legal and procurement, who penned the report, said: “According to the parents of the passenger, their daughter was placed in a state of fear and alarm by the actions of this driver.

“The driver took the passenger to a nearby petrol station to demand she obtained money from the ATM. The passenger sought safety in the petrol station shop and the driver eventually drove off without payment but leaving the young female passenger to walk home.”

The girl’s parents dispute parts of the report submitted to councillors and plan to send their version of events to the council ahead of the next licensing meeting.

Council officers viewed CCTV footage from the petrol station to corroborate the incident, while the driver admitted it in interview.

However, he insisted the soiling did occur.

“No further bookings were taken on that particular night which may corroborate that,” the report states.

The driver has been warned about his actions but councillors could call him to a meeting to rule whether he is a fit and proper person to drive a private hire car.

The new policy would prevent drivers asking for a soiling charge unless it’s agreed prior to the journey.

If soiling occurs, payment can be requested but drivers would have to allow passengers to make a payment at a later date.

Drivers would be unable to prevent passengers leaving the vehicle or driving them to an ATM, unless the passenger agreed.

"Good evening.

"I know you're only going half a mile, but unfortunately we'll have to discuss a soiling charge in case you vomit during the two-minute trip.

"Here's the contract I've draw up.

"It's only two thousand words, but I'll have to get you to sign it once you've read it over.

"Then the other seven passengers can do likewise.

"Any questions and you'll have to wait until I consult my lawyer, who's at his desk in eight hours time."

Blah, blah...


Bye-bye soiling charge...

What a load of old bollocks.

Does the bus driver say that? Does a train driver say that? Does the pilot say that?

Of course not, absolute madness from numpty civil servants.

_________________
IDFIMH

I'm also struggling to see what the driver did wrong?

The girl got out the car for a reason, he therefore didn't kidnap her.

She clearly didn't want to get back in a car full of puke, so surely the best thing the driver did was pull away.

Thus stopping the situation escalating.

And why did she walk home? I quite sure the petrol station would allowed her to use there phone to call another cab, or one of her mates, or in the worst case scenario the police.

She was in no danger, I suggest her parents concentrate on bringing her up properly rather than make the driver the bad guy.

_________________
IDFIMH

Suspect the problem was that the driver locked the doors and prevented the girl from leaving, and then took her to the ATM and 'demanded' the cash.



Another problem seems to be that the girl disputed that anyone had puked, and seems that the parents agreed with her, but council seems to believe the driver in that regard.

Of course, not unusual for people to claim that there's no mess, or that it was someone else's fault etc. On the evidence available I'm inclined to believe the driver here, but look at the some of the soiling cases involving Uber.

But I wouldn't be surprised if the girl said she would pay, but when they got to the filling station she went inside, knowing that in all probability that would get her out of paying. Reminds me of that incident a few weeks ago when the pished up guy disappeared and left the girl to pay the the whole bill. She initially disputed that she was liable, then said she'd pay if I took her home, but (surprise, surprise) changed her mind when we arrived there.

Wouldn't be surprised if that's what happened here - girl said she'd pay if the driver took her to the ATM at the filling station, and knew she could go inside and that would be the end of it.

Probably not far from home either by the sounds of it, which is maybe why she just walked home.

Another factor again might be who is liable for the fare - it reads like it was one of the other girls who puked up, but the driver expected to get the soiling charge from the last girl out, but maybe she thought it wasn't her problem (since a soiling charge is obviously more attributable to a specific individual rather than the taxi fare generally, she probably has a better case than the one who wouldn't pay me the whole fare for the trip.)

But Newton Mearns is one of the poshest parts of Scotland, so wouldn't be surprised if the parents are lawyers or whatever, but certainly could be type who think the driver's function is just to get their little cherubs home safely and clean up any puke etc which the poor darlings leave behind.

without making the slightest dent in their wealth

you missed a bit out

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

Yes, I think some people seem to think that any soiling charge is effectively included in the standard fare

Oh, aye, another thing I meant to say earlier was that the students may have exaggerated the driver's reaction in the hope that would get them out of paying the soiling charge:



Reminds me of that case a few months ago (which I think was in the same sort of Greater Glasgow area) where the females accused the driver of touching the girl's leg when she was sat in the middle front seat of an eight-seater, thus driver changing gear may have accidentally brushed against her leg, and this was used as a pretence not to pay the fare.

So could be similar here - the driver's reaction is considered to be the problem, so she disappears into the filling station, kicks up a stink, plays the victim - voila, the driver has no choice but to drive off without getting the soiling charge.

Of course, the odd thing here is perhaps that things like this usually end there and then, and doesn't result in police called or whatever.

But that she went home and told her parents, who then kicked up a fuss with the council, suggests that there may be more to it than the usual 'he said, she said' stuff from pished-up drunks, but who knows?

As I said earlier, some of the Uber cases demonstrate that drivers exaggerate or may have got the wrong end of the stick, but obviously it works both ways.

Of course, when it comes to fare disputes every driver will be aware of those little lies and allegations that people use to try and get out of paying, or pay a lesser charge, so I'm inclined to take the driver's side here, but we'll probably never know the full facts.

And, as Sussex *didn't* say last night (surprisingly!), if the driver had had CCTV the whole episode would probably have never happened, or at least wouldn't have escalated in the way it did.

Not often that students in St Andrews try any kind of physical intimidation, but one sticks in the mind from a couple of years ago, when three guys and a girl were getting slightly lairy after discovering they didn't have the full fare to pay me.

So I fished out my phone, intending to video them in the hope it would get them to pay up, or at least for my own protection.

So the girl gets out of the car and takes her own phone out and starts filming me, screaming and shouting:

"OMG WHY ARE YOU FILMING AN UNDERAGE GIRL", blah blah.

Of course, that she was a student and had just come home pished from the pub/union in the early hours didn't matter - all that was required was that she was implying that I was some sort of monster, thus assuming I'd just disappear and they'd not have to pay the fare.

Anyway, I didn't actually manage to get my phone activated, and by that time had given up on the fare and just wanted to get them out of the car and on my way, so it was all a bit pointless anyway.

But needless to say I never heard another peep about it - they'd used a smear to get off without paying - job done.

Which is why this one seems a bit odd - I can get my head round the bit where the girl may have exaggerated the driver's reaction/downplayed the mess to get out of paying, but why she just didn't leave it there instead of escalating it with her parents etc is the bit I can't get my head round.

Because I suspect she went weeping home to mummy and daddy about the beastly taxi driver, and mummy and daddy believed every word.

Whereas the likes of you and me would have asked why would a fella who's job it is to take people from A to B for payment, drive off and leave you without receiving said payment.

_________________
IDFIMH