Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:46 pm

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 4629
Another one that seems a tad on the harsh side.


Council awarded costs after taxi driver who had licence refused loses court appeal

https://www.burytimes.co.uk/news/180133 ... rt-appeal/

BURY Council has been awarded costs after a taxi driver who had his licence refused lost his court appeal.

Earlier this year a vehicle belonging to Hackney carriage driver Ajmal Khan failed its test at the council's Bradley Fold testing station.

The vehicle had notched up nine faults, exceeding the maximum of five faults permitted under council policy for vehicles over 10-years-old.

As a result members of the local authority's licensing panel refused to renew Mr Khan's licence at a hearing on March 7.

Mr Khan then appealed the decision, taking the case to court.

However, at a hearing at Manchester and Salford Magistrates' Court on September 10, magistrates upheld the licensing panel's decision and awarded the council £1,000 in costs.



For what it's worth, this seems to be the council's minutes, although he's not named - looks like he took three retests to get the cab through :shock:

A RENEWAL APPLICATION TO LICENCE A HACKNEY CARRIAGE LICENCE (3)

https://councildecisions.bury.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=7870

Meeting of Licensing and Safety Panel, Thursday, 7th March, 2019 7.00 pm (Item LSP.10)

A report by the Assistant Director (Legal and Democratic Services) is attached.

The Licensing Unit Manager presented a report submitted by the Assistant Director (Legal and Democratic Services), regarding the review of the five fault criteria in respect of a Hackney Carriage vehicle licence.

The report explained that prior to February 2006, Hackney Carriage vehicles over 10 years old were not licensed by Bury Council unless the vehicle was in ‘exceptional condition’. On 2 February 2006, following a request from the Hackney Carriage Association, the Licensing and Safety Panel reviewed the ‘exceptional condition’ criteria and resolved to allow vehicles to be licensed beyond 10 years of age subject to the vehicle passing requisite inspections with no more than 5 faults being identified (‘the 5 fault rule’)..

This Policy has been reviewed since the above date and on 8 May 2014 the Licensing and Safety Panel considered a report relating to the review of current Policies relating to the Licensing and testing of Hackney Carriage and Private Hire vehicles. Members resolved that the ‘exceptional condition’ criteria be re-introduced for Hackney Carriages at 10 years old as an incentive to encourage proactive maintenance and provide for additional testing requirements where vehicles fall below acceptable standards.

In addition, existing licence holders be allowed a 3 year transitional period should they have made financial plans in respect of their vehicle to allow them to be licensed subject to the 5 fault rule.

On 27 July 2017, the Licensing and Safety Panel considered a report following a request from the Hackney Carriage Association represented by Mr Giles Bridge, requesting the Council consider a 15 year age Policy and review whether the five fault rule or the ‘exceptional condition’ criteria should apply to all Hackney Carriage vehicles over 10 years of age. Members resolved unanimously that approval be given to continue with the current Licensing and testing Policy in relation to Hackney Carriage vehicles up to 10 years of age and then require the vehicle to be subject to the 5 fault rule

The Licence Holder of a Fiat Scudo attended the hearing and was accompanied by a friend. The report presented by the Licensing Unit Manager explained that the vehicle in question, had been licensed by Bury Council since 30 August 2012 and on 26 February 2016, was transferred into the Licence Holder’s name. The vehicle licence expired on 24 February 2019.

On 15 August 2018, the vehicle was scheduled for a routine 6 month interim test at the Council’s test Centre at Bradley Fold but the vehicle was not presented for test so the vehicle licence was suspended.

On 22 August 2018, the vehicle underwent a routine 6 month interim test at the Council’s test Centre at Bradley Fold and failed the test with 9 faults, 5 of which were MOT faults.

On 24 August 2018, the vehicle was presented for retest. The vehicle still had 2 MOT faults.

On 30 August 2018, the vehicle was presented for a second retest, the vehicle still had 1 MOT fault as the rear brakes were out of balance.

On 4 September 2018, the vehicle was represented for a third retest which the vehicle passed.

On 11 February 2019, the licence holder made an application to renew this vehicle licence prior to its expiry on 24 February 2019. The Licensing Service requested the vehicle undertake the usual renewal test on 27 February 2019, where the vehicle was found to have 8 faults, 2 of which were MOT faults.

The Licensing Unit Manager explained it is for the licence holder to present a case as to whether the Licensing and Safety Panel should deviate from the current Council Policy of vehicles over 10 years of age being subject to the 5 fault rule.

The Licence Holder and his friend addressed the Panel and stated that it had cost £800 to get the vehicle through the tests and that although drivers try to keep their vehicles maintained, the public are often drunk and don’t care about them and abuse the vehicles. The Licence Holder stated that there was very little work on the Bury ranks with so many Hackney Carriage vehicles. He further stated that the issues relating to the faults, were not big issues and wouldn’t be dangerous to passengers and that he had taken the vehicle to a garage before being tested and had been told it was ok. The Licence Holder also stated that he had a family to provide for financially and a mortgage to pay.

Delegated decision:

The Panel carefully considered the report including the information and results in relation to the testing of the vehicle and the oral representations and resolved on a majority basis to refuse the renewal application.

The Panel found as follows;

1. That the vehicle had failed on 9 faults in August 2018, 5 being MOT faults.

2. That the vehicle, had been driven over 264,000 miles.

3. That this was a very serious matter as public safety was paramount.

4. The vehicle failed a further 2 renewal retests with faults including MOT faults.

5. That there were no facts presented upon which the Licensing and Safety Panel could justify deviating from the current 5 fault rule Council Policy for vehicles over 10 years.

The licence holder was informed of their right to appeal within 21 days


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 10:47 pm
Posts: 13248
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
Quote:
1. That the vehicle had failed on 9 faults in August 2018, 5 being MOT faults.

2. That the vehicle, had been driven over 264,000 miles.

3. That this was a very serious matter as public safety was paramount.

4. The vehicle failed a further 2 renewal retests with faults including MOT faults.

5. That there were no facts presented upon which the Licensing and Safety Panel could justify deviating from the current 5 fault rule Council Policy for vehicles over 10 years.


#-o is the bloke brain dead or what time to get a new car mate :roll:

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

Join the campaign to get April fools jokes banned for 364 days a year !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 1:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:17 pm
Posts: 2356
There should be no excuse for any taxi or ph car to have any defects on test. The test should not be used as a safety check to find out what's wrong with the car. The DVSA/VOSA made that very clear to the bus and truck industries many years ago. It's time the taxi industry adopted the same sort of standards.

When I was doing ph work my car was over 7 years old and only ever failed one test on an indicator bulb not being yellow enough. In my eyes it was the same yellowness as the other one.

People who don't maintain their cars regularly should not be allowed on the road.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 8:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:00 am
Posts: 14
Location: Wolverton, buckinghamshire
edders23 wrote:
Quote:
1. That the vehicle had failed on 9 faults in August 2018, 5 being MOT faults.

2. That the vehicle, had been driven over 264,000 miles.

3. That this was a very serious matter as public safety was paramount.

4. The vehicle failed a further 2 renewal retests with faults including MOT faults.

5. That there were no facts presented upon which the Licensing and Safety Panel could justify deviating from the current 5 fault rule Council Policy for vehicles over 10 years.


#-o is the bloke brain dead or what time to get a new car mate :roll:


We have a HC Toyota Hiace here 11 years old with over 800k on the clock Driven nearly 24 hours a day by 3 different drivers and still is in good nick compared to age and mileage.

I also know of a guy with the same car whos just reached 500k and he does 100k miles a year alone


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 8:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:05 am
Posts: 76
roythebus wrote:
People who don't maintain their cars regularly should not be allowed on the road.


I've said it to countless people before now. If the wheels on the taxi stop turning you stop earning. Keeping it maintained and on the road should be your number one priority. If it's a choice between a new tyre and taking your missus out for your anniversary then take her to the chippy cos the cab comes first.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 43966
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
We have a HC Toyota Hiace here 11 years old with over 800k on the clock

But is it like Trigger's broom?

Same car but 100% different to the one that was originally made?

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group