Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 11:15 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 4:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 13821
Tough sanctions imposed to keep Blackpool taxis safe

https://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news ... 1-10148250

A would-be cabbie who failed to disclose a "significant number" of criminal convictions has been refused a taxi licence by Blackpool Council.

Many of the offences involved theft or dishonesty, a meeting of the council's public protection sub-committee was told.

The applicant, who cannot be named because the hearing was held behind closed doors, had also failed to disclose motoring offences for which he had received penalty points.

Minutes from the meeting held in November reveal councillors refused the application but agreed not to prosecute the driver for his failure to declare previous convictions.

The applicant told the committee he had held a managerial position for 17 years and other drivers had advised him he did not need to declare all historical convictions.

Another driver was hauled before councillors after "serious maintenance issues" were uncovered during a routine inspection of his vehicle.

He claimed his mechanic had failed to inform him of the faults, but councillors heard there were five defects which would have led to an MoT test failure.

The driver was allowed to keep his licence but was ordered to have his vehicle inspected weekly by a qualified mechanic, with a vehicle safety check to be carried out every two months with records of all servicing to be maintained for two years.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 4:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 13821
Quote:
Minutes from the meeting held in November reveal councillors refused the application but agreed not to prosecute the driver for his failure to declare previous convictions.

Can't be many prosecutions for that kind of thing, at least as compared to number of times it happens?

Quote:
The driver was allowed to keep his licence but was ordered to have his vehicle inspected weekly by a qualified mechanic, with a vehicle safety check to be carried out every two months with records of all servicing to be maintained for two years.

*Weekly* inspections by *qualified mechanic*? :shock:

That'll cost a lot of cash and inconvenience, unless he has a pal who's a mechanic. Which looks unlikely :?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 6:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:23 pm
Posts: 4904
Location: Lincoln
Often wondered. In the modern age of DBS, formerly known as the CRB, which produces a print out of all misdeeds from ones past, why would you need to write down a list of misdemeanours on application before the production of the CRB? Back in the olden days, or 1984, when I first applied for a licence, I can fully understand the need for an honest statement from the applicant. The licensing officer back then was invariably a retired cop, he would ask his ex colleagues to dish the dirt on you, and a decision was made on the merits of that intelligence enquiry. It was an offence to give the wrong information. Now with the DBS, you just won’t get away with it. So why ask? Just make a decision on the evidence in front of you. I mean, I’d completely forgotten that I did seven years for armed robbery, an easy mistake to make.

_________________
Former taxi driver


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:58 pm
Posts: 3486
Location: Plymouth
StuartW wrote:
ordered to have his vehicle inspected weekly by a qualified mechanic, with a vehicle safety check to be carried out every two months with records of all servicing to be maintained for two years.

The 1976 Act for the great unwashed allows inspection 3 times a year.

In Plymouth we can be inspected 4 times annually.

I think the LA in Blackpool have given themselves a power they don't have.

Would the Driver win if he Appealed the order - or would a Bench simply take his Badge?

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2019 12:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 13821
Chris the Fish wrote:
The 1976 Act for the great unwashed allows inspection 3 times a year.

In Plymouth we can be inspected 4 times annually.

I think the LA in Blackpool have given themselves a power they don't have.

Would the Driver win if he Appealed the order - or would a Bench simply take his Badge?


An interesting thought, but presumably the 1976 Act is more about calling cars in for a formal council inspection?

I assume, for example, that they could call the car in three times and inspect it on the street and still be within the Act?

Who knows? Probably a grey area that's never been tested in court.

And then there's specifying externally-conducted tests as per the case here.

Which I assume isn't illegal in principle, in addition to the three tests allowed by the Act, but *weekly* inspections by a qualified mechanic seems a tad disproportionate.

And, I mean, five MoT failure items? Bet there's thousands of cabs in the UK that have had that, in fact wouldn't be surprised if there are thousands at any one time, but of course a full random MoT standard inspection is relatively rare.

Of course, the five failure items may have been major safety issues rather than a side light bulb out (say), but the story doesn't elaborate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2019 1:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:58 pm
Posts: 3486
Location: Plymouth
The wording in the 1976 Act:

Quote:
50 Provisions as to proprietors (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 68
of this Act, the proprietor of any hackney carriage or of any private hire vehicle
licensed by a district council shall present such hackney carriage or private hire
vehicle for inspection and testing by or on behalf of the council within such period
and at such place within the area of the council as they may by notice reasonably
require:
Provided that a district council shall not under the provisions of this subsection
require a proprietor to present the same hackney carriage or private hire vehicle for
inspection and testing on more than three separate occasions during any one period of
twelve months.

End Quote.

So I suggest that they are imposing testing every 2 months (6 per annum) as well as weekly (52 per annum).
Even if the 2 monthly is combined with the weekly where they coincide, 52 per annum is ridiculous.

I don't dispute that the failure to maintain the vehicle is a grave matter. What concerns me is LA's that think they can ignore Primary Legislation and simply do what they want. If maintenance was (and it probably was) that bad, they should have considered revoking the Plate if they were not minded to suspend or revoke the Driver. That approach would have been following Primary Legislation and I would have had no concern.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 53921
Location: 1066 Country
jimbo wrote:
Often wondered. In the modern age of DBS, formerly known as the CRB, which produces a print out of all misdeeds from ones past, why would you need to write down a list of misdemeanours on application before the production of the CRB? Back in the olden days, or 1984, when I first applied for a licence, I can fully understand the need for an honest statement from the applicant. The licensing officer back then was invariably a retired cop, he would ask his ex colleagues to dish the dirt on you, and a decision was made on the merits of that intelligence enquiry. It was an offence to give the wrong information. Now with the DBS, you just won’t get away with it. So why ask? Just make a decision on the evidence in front of you. I mean, I’d completely forgotten that I did seven years for armed robbery, an easy mistake to make.

Not as straight forward as we think.

Good article in Dec PHTM (page 78-79, if you can put up with the horrible page turning noise).

https://edition.pagesuite-professional. ... 7c345933a2

I do get your update point as the law states that the police must inform a council if a taxi/PH driver commits an offence.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 13821
Chris the Fish wrote:
So I suggest that they are imposing testing every 2 months (6 per annum) as well as weekly (52 per annum).
Even if the 2 monthly is combined with the weekly where they coincide, 52 per annum is ridiculous.

I don't dispute that the failure to maintain the vehicle is a grave matter. What concerns me is LA's that think they can ignore Primary Legislation and simply do what they want. If maintenance was (and it probably was) that bad, they should have considered revoking the Plate if they were not minded to suspend or revoke the Driver. That approach would have been following Primary Legislation and I would have had no concern.


I suspect the words 'for and on behalf of the council' in the legislation is referring to the normal inspection process, whether the council does it themselves or contracts it out in some way.

So I'm guessing the assumption is that they can specify some sort of external testing regime in addition to that, and that wouldn't come within the limits specified by the Act:

Quote:
...shall present such...vehicle for inspection and testing by or on behalf of the council within such period and at such place within the area of the council...


I doubt if specifying external inspection schedules of some kind is that unusual in addition to the council's internal tests, at least in individual case like here as opposed to a blanket policy.

And the likes of Barnsley here even seemed to specify daily checksheets (but which unsurprisingly many drivers didn't seem to have completed).

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=34294

So unless it's been clarified in court I suspect the view is that councils can specify more frequent testing than is provided for in the Act, as long as it's not a formal call-in by the council.

But again I'm guessing that if it was legally challenged then weekly testing by a qualified mechanic might be deemed disproportionate, but who knows?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 99 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