Taxi Driver Online

Bradford taxi driver used vehicle twice without proper licence

A TAXI driver used a vehicle twice without the licence to do so and without insurance but has escaped a ban.

Mohammed Urrehman, 46, of Apsen Rise, in Allerton, Bradford was sentenced at Kirklees Magistrates' Court on December 12, 2022 for four offences, with the court record made available last Friday.

The offences were two counts of being the proprietor of a vehicle used as a private hire vehicle without a current section 48 licence and two counts of using a motor vehicle on a road or public place without third party insurance.

Urrehman pleaded guilty to the charges back on August 8 last year.

The 46-year-old was found to have driven his silver Toyota Auris Hatchback on January 2 last year as a private hire vehicle in a controlled district - between Compton Road and Tong Road in Leeds - without having a current licence under section 48 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

He was also driving without insurance on that day too.

Urrehman then committed the same offences two days later - on January 4, 2022 - this time between Glensdale Terrace and Rowland Place in Leeds.

The court ordered Urrehman to pay £660 for the offences of being the proprietor of a vehicle used as a private hire vehicle without a current licence.

This included a £500 fine, surcharge of £50 to fund victim services and £110 in costs.

Urrehman had his driving record endorsed with six penalty points for driving without insurance on two occasions but avoided a totting-up disqualification due to mitigating circumstances.

The court decided he would suffer "exceptional hardship" if he was to be banned from driving, for three main reasons.

This included that Urrehman would lose either his current job or another job involving driving if he can't work as a taxi driver, his family depend on him to drive them around, and he would not be able to pay the mortgage and would lose the family home.

_________________
IDFIMH

Not sure who was legally advising the court at that time, but the above is not, non ever has been, a reason to justify 'exceptional hardship'.

_________________
IDFIMH

Slightly bizarre descriptions of the offence in this article, in that there's zero detail about what he was actually doing to constitute the offence, other than the location and that he actually committed the offence.

It's a bit like a report saying that a driver was found guilty of sexual assault between the High Street and Acacia Avenue, but nothing about the victim, what the driver actually did, nor how it all came about.

The driver in the report above was presumably carrying a fare-paying passenger between the locations mentioned, but who knows, precisely?

The mere fact of him driving a licensed PH without a current PH license is all that's needed.

_________________
IDFIMH