| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Off-duty Erewash LO spotted lapsed HCD who failed inspection http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=35394 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | StuartW [ Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Off-duty Erewash LO spotted lapsed HCD who failed inspection |
Think there's a lot of Erewash-plated cars working in Derby, but I don't think there's a cross-border element here - he just happens to live in Derby, but was licensed by Erewash Council, and the rank he was plying at is in the Erewash Council area. Taxi driver caught without license slapped with hefty fine https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/d ... ne-3817001 His vehicle was deemed unsafe to drive A taxi driver has been slapped with a hefty fine after being caught operating a hackney carriage illegally. Muhammad Asif Farid was ordered to pay £690 after being found guilty of plying for hire without having a license. Farid, of Molineux Street, Derby, was spotted by off-duty Erewash Borough Council licensing officers while waiting in his vehicle at the Ilkeston Market Place taxi rank in March last year. The 40-year-old pleaded not guilty to the offence but was convicted by a bench of three magistrates at Southern Derbyshire Magistrates' Court on Thursday, January 30. The court was told he had not submitted his renewal application and supporting documentation before the expiry of his hackney carriage vehicle licence on February 24, 2019. His vehicle had failed the council’s depot inspection and was deemed unsafe to drive. He required a re-test once the work had been carried out. The next available date for the re-test was March 5, but he was seen in the Ilkeston rank on March 1 and was told by the licensing officers he had no licence and that should leave the queue. Councillor Garry Hickton, Erewash Borough Council’s lead member for environment, says: “Licensing rules are there for a reason and we take any breach seriously. "We require the highest standards from taxi drivers in the borough and on this occasion Mr Farid did not meet them. “It should serve as a warning that we will always take action.” Farid, who is now properly licensed, was fined £100 for the offence and was ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £30 and pay the council’s full costs of £560, making a total of £690. |
|
| Author: | StuartW [ Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Off-duty Erewash LO spotted lapsed HCD who failed inspec |
Quote: Farid, who is now properly licensed, was fined £100 for the offence and was ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £30 and pay the council’s full costs of £560, making a total of £690. Oh, so he's getting to keep his badge and plate, then?  £100 doesn't seem much of a fine, although council's costs of £560 seems hefty enough. But I'm sure someone on here can give us chapter and verse 
|
|
| Author: | edders23 [ Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Off-duty Erewash LO spotted lapsed HCD who failed inspec |
StuartW wrote: Quote: Farid, who is now properly licensed, was fined £100 for the offence and was ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £30 and pay the council’s full costs of £560, making a total of £690. Oh, so he's getting to keep his badge and plate, then? £100 doesn't seem much of a fine, although council's costs of £560 seems hefty enough. But I'm sure someone on here can give us chapter and verse doubt it there's never been anyone on here from Erewash to my knowledge I did do a fare to Ilkeston on christmas eve about 28 years ago but that's the only time i have ever been there I would assume it is down to the council to decide if he warrants being stripped of his badge with a resultant loss of fees for the council |
|
| Author: | StuartW [ Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Off-duty Erewash LO spotted lapsed HCD who failed inspec |
edders23 wrote: [doubt it there's never been anyone on here from Erewash to my knowledge I did do a fare to Ilkeston on christmas eve about 28 years ago but that's the only time i have ever been there I meant 'chapter and verse' with regard to the fine and costs Good to know you've been to Ilkeston, though - if I'd had to guess I'd have said it was in Yorkshire  And I thought Erewash was something you bought at the chemist 
|
|
| Author: | edders23 [ Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Off-duty Erewash LO spotted lapsed HCD who failed inspec |
StuartW wrote: edders23 wrote: [doubt it there's never been anyone on here from Erewash to my knowledge I did do a fare to Ilkeston on christmas eve about 28 years ago but that's the only time i have ever been there I meant 'chapter and verse' with regard to the fine and costs Good to know you've been to Ilkeston, though - if I'd had to guess I'd have said it was in Yorkshire And I thought Erewash was something you bought at the chemist named for the river Erewash which I think is a tributary of the Trent (coal and steel country !) |
|
| Author: | Karga [ Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Off-duty Erewash LO spotted lapsed HCD who failed inspec |
The fine is based on income. He's probably one of the guys that manages to work every hour under the sun but somehow manage to earn enough not to have to pay the taxman anything. |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Off-duty Erewash LO spotted lapsed HCD who failed inspec |
Quote: £100 doesn't seem much of a fine, although council's costs of £560 seems hefty enough. But I'm sure someone on here can give us chapter and verse Fine based on income. So if I was guessing he told the court he earns £200 a week, and the offence is an A Band fine, which is 50% of weekly income. Costs are justified because a not guilty trial took place, and witnesses would have needed to be called to give evidence and a trial would have needed to be prepared for. |
|
| Author: | StuartW [ Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Off-duty Erewash LO spotted lapsed HCD who failed inspec |
Thanks, chaps, I always forget fines based on income, which can, er, be fluid. Sussex wrote: Costs are justified because a not guilty trial took place, and witnesses would have needed to be called to give evidence and a trial would have needed to be prepared for. Was thinking about the Exeter guide dog case and the nearly £2k requested by the council, while you suggested they might have actually been awarded £85? But of course the Exeter driver pleaded guilty, so I suppose the costs here are in the right ball park 
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|