Taxi Driver Online

Harsh


Taxi driver's licence revoked over assistance dog refusal

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/n ... g-refusal/


An assistance dog taking a card from a cash machine (Image: Lancashire Telegraph)

A PRIVATE hire taxi driver has had his licence revoked after refusing to carry a vulnerable passenger because of her assistance dog.

The woman was left stranded following the aborted pick-up at Chorley Hospital in April.

The driver denied an allegation he had objected to the assistance dog being unclean, but Chorley Council’s licensing panel did not accept his alternative explanation for leaving the woman.

The committee’s decision was made at a behind-closed-doors meeting, details of which have only just been published.

Neither driver nor the rejected passenger have been identified.

The panel heard that the driver had been aware of the presence of the dog when he accepted the booking.

When he arrived to collect his fare, he found that the animal had just been to the toilet and its owner was cleaning up.

Members were told that the driver asked the passenger to sit in the back of the vehicle where she would “be more comfortable”.

He claimed that she then refused to travel with him, but he denied arguing with the woman.

Audio recordings were played in which the taxi call operator could be heard telling the driver it would be illegal for him to refuse the booking – contradicting his earlier claim that it was the operator who told him to leave.

But the driver did leave – without advising the woman that the operator had arranged for another vehicle to be sent.

Questioned as to how he felt about abandoning the passenger with no knowledge of what was happening, the driver said there was only so long that he could remain parked up in the area.

The hospital receptionist who called the cab on the woman’s behalf complained about the incident several weeks later.

In revoking the driver’s licence, the panel found that the breach of conditions was aggravated by the woman’s vulnerability.

Members also noted that he was an experienced driver who knew his obligations under the law, as well as his licence.

Peter Gorbing, chief executive of Assistance Dogs UK, said that such incidents were “not uncommon”.

“Most assistance dog owners will have experienced something similar and they are often just left hanging without the ability to arrange for another taxi themselves.

“It’s very distressing for people and they can be left with a huge sense of anguish about going out after something like this happens to them,” he added.

Wonder how it deals with contactless?






Sounds like a carbon copy of the one a couple of weeks ago, which wasn't a blanket refusal, but just a front footwell refusal.

Anyway, harsh to *revoke* for something like this, in my opinion.

Slapped wrist, suspension, prosecution, fine, or whatever, but not revocation

I agree.

_________________
IDFIMH

I think there is a strong case for arguing that this wasn't a refusal although I would have thought front foot well was better than the back anyway because the mats are larger

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

I agree on what we heard or read via the article. But the driver wasn't 100% credible as his statement conflicts with the recording.

I suspect the committee took note of that.

_________________
IDFIMH

I think revocation is justifiable. Had he got away with it once no doubt he'd try it again. And how many times has he done it in the past and not been reported?

I take the view that had he got away with it he wouldn't do it again, but I suspect councillors wanted to send a message to deter others.

_________________
IDFIMH

For what it's worth, these are the minutes of the committee hearing.

Not sure if this clarifies things any, but certainly doesn't change my view that revocation was on the harsh side.


https://democracy.chorley.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=67831

The Director of Customer and Digital submitted a report for the General Licensing Sub-Committee to determine whether the Licence Holder remained a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

The Licence Holder was present at the Sub-Committee.

The Licensing Officer outlined his report, highlighting that Chorley Council received a statement of complaint on the 6 June 2019 stating that the Licence Holder refused to take a passenger with an assistance dog on Saturday, 6 April 2019. The taxi was booked by a member of staff from Chorley Hospital Emergency Department on behalf of the passenger.

There were a number of appendices submitted as audio recordings; the Licensing Sub-Committee proceeded to listen to those recordings which involved the booking being discussed, the booking being taken, the discussion between the Licence Holder and Operator after the driver had arrived for pick up, and a conversation between the Operator and the person making the booking on behalf of the passenger.

The Licensing Officer also reported that, on the 12 October 2011, the Licence Holder attended a General Licensing Sub Committee as his licence renewal application revealed that the Licence Holder had received a Police Caution, which had not been declared to Chorley Council in accordance with the conditions of his licenses. It was noted that at that meeting, the Sub-Committee had resolved to take no action as a result of this.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, the Licensing Officer confirmed that, although not specifically part of the application process, the requirement to transport assistance dogs was clearly set out as a condition on the private hire drivers’ licence. The Licensing Officer confirmed that the dog was clearly marked as an assistance dog and paperwork confirming this status had subsequently been produced. The Sub-Committee noted that the Licence Holder had attended Safeguarding training with the Council; the Licensing Officer confirmed that this training did not specifically cover assistance dogs but focussed on safeguarding of vulnerable people. In response to further questioning, the Sub-Committee noted that the Licence Holder was aware that the passenger was accompanied by an assistance dog when he accepted the booking.

The Licence Holder advised that, upon his arrival, the passenger was waiting outside with her assistance dog. The dog made a mess and he waited while it was cleaned up. The Licence Holder advised that he asked the passenger to sit in the back of the vehicle as it would be more comfortable for her. He stated that he did not refuse to take her but instead that the passenger refused to travel with him, despite him saying twice that she could sit wherever she wanted in the vehicle. The Licence Holder advised the Sub-Committee that the passenger had not made this complaint but that a third party had made the complaint a long time after the incident.

In clarification, the Sub-Committee noted that the complaint had been made by a receptionist at the hospital who made the booking on behalf of the passenger, and that the complaint had been received on 6 June 2019, two months after the incident on 6 April 2019.

The Sub-Committee listened again to the audio recording of the Licence Holder’s conversation with the Operator.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, the Licence Holder confirmed he knew about the assistance dog when he took the booking, and that he understood the warning given by the Operator during their phone conversation that refusing a passenger with an assistance dog was against the law and might result in him losing his licence. He advised that journeys with assistance dogs were not uncommon, but the frequency varied, and he confirmed he was still employed by Yellow Cabs.

The Licensing Officer asked the Licence Holder why during his interview under caution he had stated the Operator had told him to leave, when the recording demonstrated that the Operator warned him that refusing the booking was illegal. The Licence Holder responded that he had liaised with the Operator through the taxi app prior to the phone conversation.

The Licensing Officer reminded the Licence Holder that he had stated in the interview under caution that the dog was dirty and asked whether this was the reason he had refused the booking. The Licence Holder responded that he had not argued with the passenger and that he had asked her to sit in the back. Members asked for clarification as to whether the passenger was refused because the dog was regarded as dirty and the Licence Holder advised that this was not an issue.

The Licensing Officer asked the Licence Holder if he had informed the passenger that another taxi was being sent for her before he left, and the Licence Holder responded that he had left after speaking with the Operator. When asked how he felt about leaving the passenger stranded with no knowledge that another taxi was coming, the Licence Holder advised that there was a limit to how long he could stay parked there.

In summary, the Licence Holder reiterated that the passenger had not complained, and the complaint had been made by a third party two months after the incident. He advised that the previous Sub-Committee appearance in 2011 had been a personal matter and unrelated to his dealings with the public. In addition, the Licence Holder advised that he had not received any complaints previously whilst he has been a taxi driver.


After careful consideration the Sub Committee RESOLVED that the Licence Holder is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a private hire driver and hackney carriage driver’s licence, as such Sub Committee resolved to revoke the Licence Holder’s licences for the following reasons:

1. Members listened to the complaint brought before them, the driver’s representations and the audio footage appended to the committee report. They are satisfied that the driver has breached condition 22 of his private hire driver’s licence and failed to carry out the booking subject to the complaint due to the presence of the assistance dog;

2. The driver has not produced any evidence to confirm that he has a medical condition that would exempt him from taking assistance dogs in a taxi that he is driving;

3. Members do not attach weight to the justification put forward by the Licence Holder to explain why the booking was not carried out due to the customer refusing to sit in the back of the vehicle with the assistance dog;

4. The Licence Holder’s actions are contrary to the Equality Act 2010 and this was made clear to him during his telephone discussion with the operator;

5. The Licence Holder has significant experience in being a taxi driver and knows his obligations in respect of taking customers with assistance dogs;

6. Furthermore, the Licence Holder’s actions are aggravated by the fact that the customer was left stranded and was a vulnerable person.

It was definitely on the harsh side, but I suspect what sunk him was the operator telling him he had to take the booking and him still refusing to do it.

Maybe, but according to him the passenger was refusing to get in the car even when he hadn't actually refused her. Like that other recent one, it looks a bit like a dispute over where the passenger should sit, rather than an outright refusal. And the fact that the dog had just pooped on the pavement looks like a factor in it all, too. Of course, passengers can be awkward and bloody-minded too, and the fact they're disabled doesn't change that fact.

Interesting, too, that the passenger didn't make the complaint. It was the receptionist, and some time after the incident

Also interesting was the use of the word 'dirty' in relation to the dog. It sort of reads like the driver had a religious objection to the dog, rather than because it had just pooped on the pavement, which I assume was the literal meaning of the word 'dirty' here.

And, reading the minutes, you kind of leave with the impression that it was effectively done and dusted beforehand, and that the committee was just going through the motions and finding as many reasons as possible to make sure they got their man and the right headlines in the papers.

Not that I'm cynical about these things or anything