Taxi Driver Online

The question that must be asked is what's the point of the survey?

Just read the first 2 questions. I will leave it there with those questions.

Are people really going to respond by saying that want the drivers who have caused death through driving to be licensed?

Are people really going to respond by saying that want the drivers who have been involved with sexual exploitation to be licensed?

I mean FFS.

_________________
IDFIMH

Do you mean the answers won't be nuanced enough, or that the questions aren't nuanced enough?

I agree that members of the public in particular are unlikely to say that they'd licence anyone involved in sexual exploitation or the death of someone, and would ignore the fine details.

But the questions certainly seem sensible enough if you take details and nuance into account, because a life ban for someone involved in a relatively minor driving error causing death seems a tad over the top.

And, for example, question 3 is about the 10 year ban for everything from terrorism offences to criminal damage. I mean, criminal damage could be about something relatively minor.

Recall the one in Fife who'd done some grafitti, or similar? When he applied, the council invited him to a hearing two or three times, as I recall it, and he didn't turn up at all. So the committee granted his badge anyway

So that's ridiculous at one extreme, but at the other extreme, under the IoL rules he'd have effectively zero chance of a badge for 10 years...

I agree, and my view has always been that hard and fast rules are not fair.

Each application should be viewed on its own facts and a decision should be based on those facts.

I mean most councils have very few rejections each year, so considering each application on its own merits shouldn't be that onerous a task.

_________________
IDFIMH

Councillors to consider proposed changes to ‘draconian’ taxi driver suitability policy



Councillors are to consider proposals to change Wakefield Council’s taxi driver suitability policy after a public consultation indicated that some regulations for minor traffic offences are “draconian.”

The local authority has carried out an eight-week consultation as part of a review of its current controversial policy.

Taxi drivers in the city have staged regular protests since the council adopted ‘fit and proper’ guidelines for cabbies in 2019.

Drivers who rack up more than six points on their licence for minor offences in three years currently face lengthy bans from the trade.

Wakefield Council’s licensing committee is due to consider the proposals at a meeting today (Wednesday).

Proposed changes include making existing drivers who tot up to nine points for minor offences attend an advanced driving course rather than face an immediate ban.

A report to the committee states: “Following analysis of the consultation data the results indicated that some of the current time frames following conviction before a licence would be granted or renewed were draconian.”

During the consultation period, Wakefield District Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Association submitted a letter stating: “The current threshold of seven or more points resulting in revocation with a three-year period to elapse before being re-considered for licence is too strict in some cases.

“Again, each case should be dealt with on its merits with officers having authority to depart from policy.

“Cases should be dealt with individually; more serious cases being referred to licensing committee.”

Under the proposals, new applicants who have accrued seven or eight points within the previous three years would face having to undergo an advanced driving course.

It is proposed existing licence holders who accrue seven, eight or nine points during their licence period will be required to attend an advanced driving course.

Drivers who accrue more than nine points would be revoked or refused.

A licence would not be granted for more serious driving offences.

They include offences of driving without due care and attention, reckless driving, serious speeding offences and using a hand-held device.

The draft proposal states: “The existence of a conviction shall not be the end point, but rather the starting point for consideration of the circumstances of an offence when determining suitability.

“Any offences committed or unacceptable behaviour reported whilst driving a licensed vehicle will be viewed as an aggravating factor.”

The proposed policy suggests that no period of time is considered sufficient for offences of murder, manslaughter, causing death whilst driving and terrorism offences.

The council will not grant a licence to any applicant who is currently on the sex offender register or on any barred list.

Existing licensees who are placed on the sex offenders register or on any barred list will have their licence revoked.

Anyone convicted of a crime involving exploitation will not be licensed, including slavery offences, child sexual exploitation, grooming, psychological or financial abuse.

Ten years-bans are proposed for offences including arson, actual or grievous bodily harm, robbery, possession of a firearm, assaulting a police officer and violent disorder.

Bans of at least five-years are proposed for obstruction, criminal damage and public order offences.

The draft policy also states: “The standards of safety and suitability are not set as a base minimum.

“They are set high to give the public the assurance it requires when using taxi services.

“The council does not have to strike a balance between the driver’s right to work and the public’s right to protection.

“The public are entitled to be protected.

“This means that the council is entitled and bound to treat the safety of the public as the paramount consideration.

“Taxis are used by almost everyone, but they are used regularly by particularly vulnerable groups, such as children, the elderly, disabled people and the intoxicated.”

_________________
IDFIMH

I much prefer the option to give drivers who have made a few mistakes the chance, via an advanced test, to prove that they aren't as bad as those points imply they are.

_________________
IDFIMH

‘A breath of fresh air’: Drivers welcome council changes to taxi suitability policy

https://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news ... cy-4004362

Wakefield Council has adopted a new taxi driver suitability policy to allow greater leniency for drivers convicted of minor motoring offences.

The local authority agreed to make changes to its policy after it was described as “draconian”.

Taxi trade bodies described the move as a “breath of fresh air”.

The council and taxi drivers across the district have been at loggerheads for more than three years over the so-called ‘six point rule’.

Under the previous policy, drivers who racked up more than six points on their licence for minor offences in three years faced lengthy bans from the trade.

Drivers have staged regular protests since the council adopted ‘fit and proper’ guidelines in 2019.

The council’s licensing committee this week approved a new suitability policy which was drafted after an eight-week public consultation.

Feedback from the consultation, which had thousands of responses, indicated that some of the time frames following conviction before a licence would be granted or renewed were “draconian.”

Under the new rules, existing licence holders who accrue seven, eight or nine points will have to complete an advanced driving course.

The same condition will apply to new applicants who have accrued seven or eight points within three years.

Drivers with more than nine points will have a licence revoked or refused.

In a letter to the council, David Lawrie, director of the National Private Hire and Taxi Association, said: “We welcome the changes, the partnership and supportive spirit which is clear from reading the recommended changes.

“The IOL (Institute of Licensing) guidance document has been a bone of contention with many members of the industry nationwide.

“It has been seen to be draconian by nature, and far too rigid towards drivers.

“The proposed changes and amendments we see as being far more reasonable and acceptable.

“Having spoken directly to some of your licence holders, the sentiment is echoed that the changes are indeed welcomed and considered to be a breath of fresh air.”

Christopher Woodrow, commenting on behalf of Wakefield District Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Association, said: “The association hopes that, as a result of the proposed changes, the proper exercise of good judgement and discretion, in conjunction with the revised policy, will result in a far better outcome for the trade, those wishing to enter the trade, the travelling public and the council as regulator.”

The length of bans for more serious offences have also been amended in the new policy.

A licence will still not be granted for more serious traffic offences including driving without due care and attention, reckless driving, serious speeding offences and using a hand-held device.

No period of time is considered sufficient for offences of murder, manslaughter, causing death whilst driving and terrorism offences.

The council will not grant a licence to any applicant who is currently on the sex offender register or on any barred list.

Existing licensees who are placed on the sex offender register or on any barred list will have their licence revoked.

Anyone convicted of a crime involving exploitation will not be licensed, including slavery offences, child sexual exploitation, grooming, psychological or financial abuse.

Ten-year bans are proposed for offences including arson, actual or grievous bodily harm, robbery, possession of a firearm, assaulting a police officer and violent disorder.

Bans of at least five-years are proposed for obstruction, criminal damage and public order offences.

Yet another lengthy article from Wakefield which seems more about disputatious procedures and politics than the substantive trade issues.

But it's from the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS), which is a kind of shared function used by various media outlets.

So I've no doubt there is more going on as regards trade issues in Wakefield than the average council, but on the other hand a lot of how we perceive it is to do with having a reporter on the ground willing to cover it all and publish it.

By the same token, once or twice a month the LDRS has a reporter at Glasgow City Council licensing meetings dealing with naughty drivers, and the reports are carried in several media outlets, and posted on here. But the same thing doesn't happen in Edinburgh, obviously.


Wakefield Council apologises after taxi driver was told to stop filming public meeting on his phone

https://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news ... ne-4022111

Wakefield Council has apologised after a cabbie was told to stop filming a public meeting about the taxi driver trade.

Footage of the incident shows the chair of the council’s licensing committee asking driver Adil Hamid to switch his mobile phone off.

Mr Hamid, from Dewsbury, has made a complaint over the incident which took place at Wakefield Town Hall on January 25 this year.

The filming of public meetings is permitted provided it does not disrupt the proceedings.

It is understood the council’s chief executive, Andrew Balchin, has “spoken to all parties concerned” and reminded officers of procedures.

The incident took place as councillors and officers discussed proposed changes to the council’s taxi driver suitability policy.

Footage shows committee chair Clive Tennant asking Mr Hamid to switch his phone off as he used it to recording the meeting from the public gallery.

Councillor Tennant makes the request seconds after being handed a note from a senior licensing officer.

Mr Hamid can be heard saying: “Are we not allowed to record in here?”

Councillor Tennant then asks: “Are you recording?”

Mr Hamid answers: “There is nothing written anywhere that says you can’t record. It’s a public meeting for the public to attend. Is there an issue with me recording?”

Coun Tennant then says: “Well we usually ask people to turn off all electrical devices before every meeting.”

Mr Hamid then says: “I’m recording. I’m not making any noise or anything.”

The meeting then resumes and Mr Hamid is allowed to continue filming.

Some Wakefield Council meetings are often recorded by council employees and streamed online, including full council and cabinet meetings.


Image: Wakefield Express

Mr Hamid told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: “I think it is poor that officers and people in charge of these meetings don’t seem to know the rules.

“I have attended plenty of licensing meetings in the past and recorded them on my phone without there being an issue.

“On this occasion, I had been filming for 45 minutes without anybody saying anything to me.

“I was sitting there quietly and not causing any disruption, so I just don’t understand what the problem was.”

Gillian Marshall, Wakefield Council’s chief legal officer, said: “Our licensing committee meetings are open to the public to ensure that all decisions are seen to be open and transparent.

“Filming and recording of a meeting is permitted so long as it is done in a way that does not disrupt the meeting or if private and confidential information is being discussed.

“We are sorry that on this occasion a miscommunication meant that filming of the meeting was prevented for a short time.

“This was resolved as quickly as possible, and we would like to reassure people that we are taking steps to ensure, as far as possible, that this does not happen again.”

At the meeting, committee members voted in favour of adopting a new policy to allow greater leniency for drivers convicted of minor motoring offences.

The previous policy had been described as “draconian”.

The council and drivers across the Wakefield district had been at loggerheads for more than three years over the so-called ‘six point rule’.

Under the old rules, drivers who racked up more than six points on their licence for minor offences in three years faced lengthy bans from the trade.

Last July, the council issued an apology after taxi drivers were blocked from entering a public meeting at County Hall.

Security staff eventually allowed the drivers in after a 25-minute stand-off once the chief executive had been informed of the situation.

In a statement released after that incident, Mr Balchin said: “Our licensing committee meetings are open to the public to ensure that all decisions are seen to be open and transparent.

“We are sorry that on this occasion a miscommunication meant that some people were not initially allowed into the meeting.

“This was resolved as quickly as possible, although we accept this has caused upset to those initially unable to access the meeting.

“We would like to reassure people that we are taking steps to ensure, as far as possible, that this does not happen again.”

I wasn't aware of that, but as now many meetings are webcasted it really shouldn't matter anyway.

I know that in the past a driver got a right bollocking when he videoed a licensing committee meeting.

And no, it wasn't me.

_________________
IDFIMH

I would imagine each council has its own rules and protocols regarding recording and filming and the like.

And, of course, as trade matters generally and this article demonstrates, they'll mean different things to different people, and will be enforced or not enforced as the case may be. Or, at times they'll simply make it all up as they go along, essentially

They sure are idiots.

Their policies will backfire and in a big way in the near future.

There will be a lot less licensed drivers on the road 5 years or so from now and fares will be a lot higher in the industry as a result.

It will be amusing when they eventually panic and start relaxing their draconian and totally unreasonable policies.

However, the industry will have to put up with more of this madness until it gets better.

Local Authorities are being forced to adopt the Department for Transport Guidance which is contained in the attached https://www.gov.uk/government/collectio ... in-england
The Guidance comes with the advice that if local authorities don't apply this to their current policies they have to provide a reason for not doing so.

It's one thing adopting a policy of penalty points, and another getting the level of points and the punishment right.

Too often councils just follow the lead of others and don't take local circumstances into consideration.

Personally I have no problem with the penalty points system, as it could keep drivers out of court for minor licensing infringements.

I also believe the offer of a naughty boys course is a far better option all round than revoking or suspending for minor breaches.

_________________
IDFIMH