Taxi Driver Online

How would York council KNOW if the drivers were unsuitable? Have they ever had any of these drivers apply for licences in York? If so, have they been refused York licences?

In my view the quicker we have a unified national licencing system like the bus industry has, then these arguments will continue.

Looking at the report to councillors it shows that five drivers licensed by Wolverhampton to work with York Cars in York, had previously failed the York licensing application process. One on three occasions.

https://democracy.york.gov.uk/documents ... 0final.pdf

_________________
IDFIMH

This bit in the report might be York's trump card when it comes to court.

For the avoidance of any doubt, Mr Iqbal should not be considered ‘unfit’
purely on the basis that he has obtained an private hire operator’s licence
from Wolverhampton City Council and is subcontracting work to drivers
and vehicles licensed by Wolverhampton. It is accepted that such a
practice is lawful, and is a model operated by other firms. It is the
motivation behind this and the other reasons summarised above that he
may no longer be considered a fit and proper person to hold an operator’s
licence in York.

In short they are saying their refusal to license isn't based on the cross border issue, merely the actions of the operator.

_________________
IDFIMH

And I love this bit.

‘False’, or ‘misleading’ customer testimonials
22. The ‘streetcars-taxis.co.uk’ testimonials are either fake, from another
operator or are genuine and demonstrate that Street Cars was unlawfully
operating without a licence. Mr Iqbal is unable to confirm where any of
those ‘streetcars-taxis.co.uk’ testimonials originate from, especially as he
keeps records of customer compliments, and Members may consider that
these website testimonials potentially mislead customers and members
of the public.

_________________
IDFIMH

Had a wee look at that stuff at the weekend. There's over 100 pages of evidence in the council report. Kind of get the impression they think that if they throw several tons of mud, some of it will stick.

I mean, a lot of the evidence is a back and forth exchange of numerous letters with licensing consultant David Wilson about the cross-border booking/sub-contracting thing, with lots of stuff about Autocab's booking software etc.

But it all boils down to the paragraph quoted by Sussex above - the council agree that there's nothing illegal about the cross-border stuff.

So they're basically using evidence contained in dozens of pages that's totally irrelevant, so looks more like a mud-slinging exercise.

Ah, but, it's not about breaking the law, it's about the operator's motivation for cross-border working. Er, hello? Basically they seem to be saying the operator has a bad attitude and disagrees with the council. Which seems a bit scary, actually, if they think that's a good reason to revoke his licence

Then there's stuff about the firm's cars parked where they shouldn't be etc

I mean, let's all report every driver and every firm when we see them doing the tiniest thing wrong. I'm all for zero tolerance but, as with law enforcement more generally, not when it's just used to pick on those considered undesirable

As for the operating without a licence stuff, that seems to be more about legacy phone numbers and office brands and the like. So I don't know if there's any mileage in that kind of thing from the legality angle, but again I suspect that that kind of thing isn't unusual if any council wanted to put the boot in. Kind of reminds me of that 'musical minicabs' office stuff in Burnley the other week

As for the testimonials stuff, again that's something that I would take with pinch of salt anyway. And if councils want to start on misleading advertising and the like then we'll all have a field day

I mean, next they'll be saying an op isn't fit and proper if they use a photo like this...



...when the reality is more like this. Or a lot worse



Anyway, will be an interesting test case when it gets to court

So 17 months after this operators licence was revoked, there doesn’t seem to be any updates in this case in York.
Is there any official time limit before this case has to be heard?

_________________
now a licensed hackney driver

Some Courts are listing stuff for 2024, so it doesn't surprise me at any delay.

But of course he may have withdrawn his appeal.

_________________
IDFIMH

An update from the local rag.
https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/20161906.york-cars-operator-keeps-licence/

CITY of York Council has abandoned its attempts to revoke the licence for the operator of one of the city’s largest taxi firms.

The authority says that ‘upon legal advice,’ it has settled an appeal against its decision in 2020 to revoke York Cars’ operator’s licence.

A spokesperson said it had instead extended the licence, with additional conditions.

“The council will continue to monitor this operator, as it does with all operators it licences,” they added.

“Anyone wishing to report problems with a licensed operator / vehicle / driver in the city should contact us at public.protection@york.gov.uk.”

The Press reported in November 2020 that councillors had agreed to revoke the private hire operator’s licence held by Mohammed Iqbal, who traded as York Cars, saying he was not fit to hold the licence.

A York Cars spokesman said then that it would continue to trade as usual and appeal against the council’s decision in court.

The council’s licensing team said Mr Iqbal had recruited drivers licensed by Wolverhampton City Council to work in York, when they might not be considered ‘fit and proper’ under York’s licensing policy.

It said this was not against the law but his motivations for doing so made him unfit to hold a licence.

The council also claimed Mr Iqbal had been operating companies 690 Taxis and Street Cars in York without an operator’s licence.

Leo Charalambides, barrister for the council, told a licensing meeting: “We are not saying Mr Iqbal has done anything unlawful, but that he effectively circumvents your own licensing policy.”

He said Mr Iqbal used a Facebook post to complain about the council’s stance on Uber and state his intention to protest by licensing cars elsewhere, adding: “Your second largest operator is actively advertising that it’s going elsewhere, ignoring your local requirements in order to continue working in York.”

He said Mr Iqbal put his business needs above public safety.

But Gerald Gouriet QC, representing Mr Iqbal, told the meeting that the law allowed people licensed elsewhere to operate in York.He said: “It isn’t Mr Iqbal who enables those drivers to work in York, it is the law of the land.

“It’s widely recognised that there needs to be an amendment of that law. But until it is changed Mr Iqbal is perfectly entitled to take the best commercial advantage he can. He need not be ashamed of taking advantage of the law.”

Councillors said they were concerned about the impact on the drivers who worked for York Cars, who could lose their jobs, but that they were concerned with public safety and maintaining high standards of operators in York, and they voted unanimously to revoke Mr Iqbal’s licence.

A spokesperson for York Cars said then it was disappointed by the decision and would be appealing to the courts, but it would have no effect on the current running of the company which would continue to trade as usual.

*The Press offered Mr Iqbal opportunity to comment on the council's recent decision on Friday, Monday and yesterday, but he did not respond.

_________________
now a licensed hackney driver

Clearly York have taken professional advice and that advice is that it will lose in court.

Welcome to the crazy old world of 2022.

_________________
IDFIMH

As I said in my post above with the photos, the council's case was built on little more than mud-slinging and nit-picking.

As the QC says in the article posted by Agabbycabbie:

Very interesting article re the above case in July's edition of The Institute of Licensing's publication.

https://www.instituteoflicensing.org/me ... rsion2.pdf Page 27

The conditions that York put on the operator's license are ones that I have never seen before, yet were agreed by all parties.

In some ways I wish they hadn't been agreed as it would have been very interesting to see what the Judge's view would have been.

The conditions.

i. Not to use any driver licensed by the City of Wolverhampton ("Wolverhampton licensed drivers") onto the [York Cars] platform who is known to have taken and failed the York Knowledge and Safeguarding Test within the previous 3 years, unless the driver has subsequently passed the test.

ii. To require that before fulfilling a sub-contracted booking from York Cars, each Wolverhampton-licensed driver must complete topographical training, namely 2-3 hours of in-house training consisting of classroom or in-car training, including the York Pedestrian Zone, city centre roads and routes, and important venues such as hospitals, the railway station, tourist attractions, etc.

iii. To require that before fulfilling a sub-contracted booking from York Cars, each Wolverhampton-licensed driver must take and pass a driving assessment administered by a DVSA accredited assessor, such as The Blue Lamp Trust, Green Penny or any such organisations as may be authorised or agreed with the City of York Council to undertake the said driving assessment.

_________________
IDFIMH

They might as well have made it a condition to suspend disbelief and pretend the Deregulation Act doesn't exist

Can't see why the operator agreed to what (presumably) effectively means drivers should get a York badge anyway?

Or maybe it's effectively just a watered down York badge rather than the full monty, so the operator might be thinking it doesn't amount to much? I mean 2-3 hours of in-house training might amount to little more than a minor box-ticking exercise that the council are not really in a position to scrutinize and ensure compliance of.

So it could be more about the optics on both sides rather than the substance - makes the council look like they're getting tough, while the operator just has to tick a few more boxes, so it's win-win for both sides

But at face value certainly seems to drive a coach and horses through the spirit of the legislation, for good or bad

A cynic would say this is all very convenient for all those parties, and for all those that were representing those parties.

The council appears to get what they want, and the operator doesn't have to abandon his business model in the face of an escalating legal bill.

_________________
IDFIMH

Several other threads this could be added to, but maybe this one is the most appropriate at the moment


Uber extends Local Cab service to taxi firms in York

https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/211293 ... irms-york/

GLOBAL taxi firm Uber has announced it will be extending a service in York which gives passengers the option to book trips with a local operator.

Uber, which first launched in York in 2016, has been working with locally licensed operators to meet the high level of demand in the city since June.

Local Cab trips are passed to an operator based in York to complete - and all subsequent customer support will be provided by them.

Anyone opening the Uber app in York can select the Local Cab option, alongside regular Uber-operated options UberX, Exec, Comfort and Lux.

From today (September 7), Streamline Taxis is the latest operator to be able to fulfil Local Cab trips in York – following on from a previous launch with 34 Cars in June.

Mark Goldsborough, operations director at Streamline Taxis, said: “We look forward to making Local Cab available to more people across York.

“We’re making it quicker and easier for people to get around York, connecting more passengers with taxi drivers via the Uber app.”

“The partnership with Uber is also enabling us to provide further job opportunities.”

Since the company’s successful pilot of Local Cab last year, the product has launched in over 50 locations across the UK.

This seems to be the thread with the stuff leading up to the recently reported court case in the 'licensing and legal' section on here.

Can't be bothered going through it all, but it looks like the latest judgement was made on procedural grounds rather than saying that the Deregulation Act can't effectively be bypassed by imposing conditions effectively saying that York-level standards and conditions are mandatory. I think