Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:58 am

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 7:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 4824
If you ignore my clunky thread title, this is quite interesting.

At least, the sting is in the tail of this Oxford City Council news release.


Rogue drivers face full force of the law

https://www.oxford.gov.uk/news/article/ ... of_the_law

Oxford City Council’s Licensing Team has had a string of successes in the courts protecting the public from unsafe and unsuitable drivers.

In early November, in Oxford Magistrates Court, Karol Grzyb of Toot Hill Butts, Headington was found guilty of unlawfully plying for hire in Oxford, whilst operating his taxi, which was licensed by another authority.

Mr Grzyb was fined of £483 and was also ordered to pay £300 costs and £23 victim surcharge for unlawful plying for hire as well as £200 with six points on his licence for using a motor vehicle without insurance. The Council has applied for costs of £650. Mr Grzyb has a right to appeal.

The Judge was satisfied that Mr Grzyb had failed to stop as a deliberate attempt to avoid detection. She had considered imposing a DVLA disqualification due to the aggravating circumstance and danger of this but had instead imposed penalty points as Mr Grzyb would also be subject to disciplinary action by the taxi licensing authority, Vale of White Horse District Council.

On the same date Oxford licensed driver Mohammed Hammou of John Buchan Road, Oxford lost an appeal against the Council’s revocation of his Private Hire Driver licence, which was removed due to his conviction at Magistrate Court on 13 May 2019. Mr Hammou was found guilty and fined £480 for unlawful plying for hire and £170 with six points on his license for using motor vehicle without insurance.

And on 13 November, Lutfur Rahman, of Wood Farm Road, lost his appeal against the Council's refusal to grant him a Private Hire licence. The Court was satisfied that Mr Rahman was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence as he has a long and very poor licence record. His failure to disclose convictions was also significant and deliberate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 7:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 4824
Quote:
And on 13 November, Lutfur Rahman, of Wood Farm Road, lost his appeal against the Council's refusal to grant him a Private Hire licence. The Court was satisfied that Mr Rahman was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence as he has a long and very poor licence record. His failure to disclose convictions was also significant and deliberate.


So this guy was cleared of sexual assault almost four years ago:

Oxford Mail wrote:
Taxi driver Lutfur Rahman cleared of sexual assault on New Year's Day

A TAXI driver has been acquitted of sexually assaulting a passenger in the early hours of New Year's Day.

Royal Cars driver Lutfur Rahman was accused of kissing the woman on the cheek in his taxi outside the Oxford Retreat on January 1 last year.

But a jury of eight men and four women at Oxford Crown Court found the 59-year-old not guilty yesterday.

The court heard the woman and four friends got the taxi to the Hythe Bridge Street pub from Bedford Street at about 12.30am.

Prosecutor Janette Hayne said Rahman had taken hold of the woman's arm as she went to leave the taxi, then kissed her.

She added: "She moved away so that the defendant, coming in towards her, kissed her on the cheek."

But Rahman, of Wood Farm Road, Oxford, said the woman had argued about the taxi fare being £2 more than expected and he had not kissed her.

He told the jury the group of women had been touching his hair and shoulders during the taxi ride.

He added: "I never considered anything like that because I am a professional taxi driver and I am doing my job."

The court heard the woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, sent an email complaint to the taxi firm on January 13 and reported the incident to police after being unhappy with the manager's response.


Funny, though, that at the trial this was said:

Oxford Mail wrote:
Defence barrister Jonathan Mitchell said the taxi firm told the woman there had never been any complaints about Rahman but a formal investigation would take place and had been reported to the council’s head of taxi licensing.


Which, although a few years ago now, hardly seems consistent with the "very long and poor licence record" and 'failure to disclose convictions' now cited by Oxford Council.

An unwanted kiss on the cheek without much evidence of force seems at the lower end of this kind of thing - in fact the complainant only contacted police after being dissatisfied with the way the cab company dealt with it.

But maybe his record is why he was prosecuted for this, while the trivial nature of the thing is maybe why the jury acquitted him.

(Of course, it could be two different people, but the address now and then is stated as Wood Farm Road, so very probably the same person.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 7:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 4824
Oxford Council wrote:
And on 13 November, Lutfur Rahman, of Wood Farm Road, lost his appeal against the Council's refusal to grant him a Private Hire licence. The Court was satisfied that Mr Rahman was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence as he has a long and very poor licence record. His failure to disclose convictions was also significant and deliberate.


Strictly speaking, it was presumably a renewal rather than a grant?

On the plus side, 'renewal' wouldn't have fitted into my thread title.

And 'loses renewal refusal appeal' sounds even clunkier 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:03 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 44131
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
The Judge was satisfied that Mr Grzyb had failed to stop as a deliberate attempt to avoid detection. She had considered imposing a DVLA disqualification due to the aggravating circumstance and danger of this but had instead imposed penalty points as Mr Grzyb would also be subject to disciplinary action by the taxi licensing authority, Vale of White Horse District Council.

Hmmmmmm. :-k

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 4824
Sussex wrote:
Quote:
The Judge was satisfied that Mr Grzyb had failed to stop as a deliberate attempt to avoid detection. She had considered imposing a DVLA disqualification due to the aggravating circumstance and danger of this but had instead imposed penalty points as Mr Grzyb would also be subject to disciplinary action by the taxi licensing authority, Vale of White Horse District Council.

Hmmmmmm. :-k


Is it usual for magistrates and judges to effectively say that they can be more lenient because the defendant will also be dealt with by councillors? Certainly doesn't seem to feature in many reported cases.

Interesting, too, that the words 'disciplinary action' are used, which of course veers towards punishment. And it's not the function of licensing committees to punish drivers; it's more about protecting the public.

Of course, there's that stuff about short suspensions as a utilitarian punishment, or whatever, but let's not go there at this time of the morning =;

Or, at least, it's the morning here :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:39 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 44131
Location: 1066 Country
I've never seen a report from any court that in effect says they wont deal with the matter in a certain way as someone else will.

They often order others to deal with a defendant in a certain way, but never merely assume someone else will and leave it at that.

Maybe the article isn't a 100% accurate version of events.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 10:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 10:47 pm
Posts: 13365
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
Dangerous Precedent

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 12:02 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 44131
Location: 1066 Country
edders23 wrote:
Dangerous Precedent

I would be amazed if the Judge's comments haven't been misreported.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 4824
edders23 wrote:
Dangerous Precedent

Never really go to the cinema, so haven't seen that one :lol: :-s

Sussex wrote:
Maybe the article isn't a 100% accurate version of events.

It's an Oxford Council news release, so I'm guessing some senior licensing bod would have had at least some input into its content.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:17 pm
Posts: 2369
A couple more instances of drivers being found guilty of having no insurance. do the drivers never read what their insurance policies actually say about their insurance? I'm sure if they did, almost every case of driving without insurance would have a robust defence.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 46 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