Taxi Driver Online

Not sure if he's being a bit stubborn here. But ignoring the obvious confusion between the two councils, etc, it's never properly explained why the vehicle wasn't displaying a plate. But looks like neither council is interested in finding out now that the plate is affixed to the vehicle.


Normanton dad's son missing school over taxi licensing dispute

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/d ... ol-8786796

He says his son had a 100% attendance record before the dispute, which has seen him miss out on over a week of school


Image: Derby Telegraph

A Derby primary school pupil has missed out on over a week of school due to his father's concerns about the taxis and minibuses contracted by Derby City Council to take him there. Tanveer Ahmed, a yellow cab driver himself from Normanton, is the father of 10-year-old Reihan, who has special needs and attends St Giles Spencer Academy, in Chaddesden.

He says he noticed that the taxi that dropped Reihan off one day had no license plate and its driver had no ID visible, so contacted Derby City Council about it. After hearing back from the local authority, he acquiesced and agreed to let them take Reihan to the Hampshire Road school.

But then the Normanton dad claims that, after an internal discussion, a manager at the taxi firm involved, Nottingham Specialist Transport, contacted him and turned abusive. Derby City Council has offered a mileage allowance so Mr Ahmed can take Reihan to school himself, but due to other commitments, Mr Ahmed says this isn't possible, and Reihan has now been off school for around two weeks.

Mr Ahmed said: "I'm upset. I'm trying my best to get my child back to school. I've not refused anything. Obviously, if I have concerns I'm going to mention them but they don't want to listen. I've got no issue with anybody. It's just the vehicle has to be licensed.

"I can't just let my child go in a vehicle that's not licensed. It could be anybody. I wouldn't even think to drive one of my vehicles without a license plate on."

In the same way that school buses take children to and from most city schools, Derby City Council sub-contract a taxi firm to provide transport for children to their special schools, with pupils being picked up from home.

But on the afternoon of Thursday, September 7, Reihan's third day of Year 6, Mr Ahmed says the taxi that was dropping off his son - supplied by Nottingham Specialist Transport Ltd - had no taxi license plate visible on its exterior.

He contacted Derby City Council, who he claims told him that the taxi was licensed but was exempt from needing plates. At the time, Mr Ahmed believed what was said, and agreed on WhatsApp messages with the taxi driver that Reihan would be picked up from home the next day.

But a few hours later, Mr Ahmed says a manager at Nottingham Specialist Transport (NST) rang him, being "abusive", "aggressive" and "angry" about him bringing it up with Derby City Council, he says. Mr Ahmed hung up the phone.

He then contacted Rushcliffe Borough Council - the body that licenses NST's taxis. He says the local authority told him that the taxi was not exempt and that they themselves were the only governing body who could authorise an exemption - not Derby City Council. They told him that the taxi wasn't licensed, he claims.

Then, not long later, he says Rushcliffe told him that they'd made a mistake and that actually the vehicle was licensed. But they confirmed that it had no exemption, meaning that the plates should have been on the vehicle.

Since, NST has allegedly rectified the issue and put plates on the vehicle. But Mr Ahmed says he does not feel safe sending his son to school with them after the phone call he received, and still disputing that they initially failed to display plates.

Mr Ahmed claims the driver from NST deleted a message he had sent him on WhatsApp saying that he would pick Reihan up. Mr Ahmed says hasn't heard from them since the phone call.

Mr Ahmed claims back-and-forth conversations with Derby City Council have been fruitless. They have offered him a mileage allowance for arranging his own transport for Reihan - but he says this isn't feasible due to work and family commitments.

He says a councillor has since told him the case is closed. He is now being contacted by welfare officers, telling him that he faces legal intervention under Section 444 of the 1996 Education Act if Reihan continues to miss school.

Mr Ahmed said: "There's been no outcome. How can the case be closed?"

A spokesperson for Nottingham Specialist Transport said: "All NST Vehicles are fully licenced and whilst we are unable to comment on individual cases, Nottingham Specialist Transport provide home to school travel assistance to all eligible children and young people under its contract with Derby City Council."

A spokesperson for Derby City Council said: "The Council commissioned Nottingham Specialist Transport following a fully compliant procurement process. We ensure all transport providers, including drivers and passenger assistants, are fully compliant with all relevant requirements."

A Rushcliffe Borough Council spokesperson said: “Nottingham Specialist Transport is a private hire operator, licensed by Rushcliffe Borough Council. Vehicles operated by the business are also licensed by Rushcliffe Borough Council.”

If you have experienced a similar issue please contact Joseph Connolly at joseph.connolly@reachplc.com or on 07909003479.


Photo of the vehicle here without a plate.

https://i2-prod.derbytelegraph.co.uk/in ... -1jpeg.jpg

Almost 60 comments about this article

And some asking the obvious question, are his other commitments his own school run contract?

But there's quite a lot of, er, negativity in the comments

as I've mentioned before there used to be a local firm that used family members in their private cars to do school runs and that was considered acceptable to LCC as long as they had liability insurance.

I think the insistence on licensed vehicles for contracts is down to insurance so perhaps councils are saving money by using unlicensed but adequately insured vehicles

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

As the dad is in the trade, he will take more notice of what picks up his kid.

I suspect the vehicle is unlicensed, hence the firm getting a bit shirty.

But the dad shouldn't keep the lad off school, he should be taking him himself until the matter is resolved.

_________________
IDFIMH

I'd suggest they look at the "Pink Ladies" case in the Luton area from a few years back. There's also the case with the MIB from about 20 years ago which both say that any form of regular trips where money changes hands must be licenced for hire and reward with proper H&R insurance in place.

The only exemption to the rule of displaying a PH or HC plate is if the vehicle is displaying a PSV operators licence disc. Pubic liability insurance won't wash on a motor vehicle, it's what the vehicle insurer actually covers. Carriage of passengers for hire and reward, delivering food etc are not covered under the usual SDP policy.