Taxi Driver Online

Thought the headline here was accurate for a change with regards to fines/costs, or whatever.

But that's using the word 'costs' in the sense of simple overall financial detriment, which is OK - a bit like saying he's £2k 'out of pocket'.

But then the first line of the article uses the word 'costs' in terms of that applied by the courts, thus it's incorrect...the 'costs' were actually c. £1.7k, the rest being fines and victim surcharge

Little information about the actual offence, though. And I wonder what the two offences were? And why the operator felt the need to provide a false address? But just the usual blather from the council.

And, to be really pedantic, maybe it was a false address rather than a fake, because the address does exist, and wasn't just made up


Fake address costs Wootton private hire operator over £2,000

https://www.bedfordtoday.co.uk/news/cri ... 00-4889700

A man who gave a false address to apply for a private hire operator licence has had to pay costs of over £2,000 after being taken to court.

The deception was uncovered when the unsuspecting residents at the bogus address contacted Central Bedfordshire Council, puzzled by a licensing letter they had received.

Charles O’Neal of Grovebury Court, Wootton, pleaded guilty at Luton Magistrates Court and was fined £200 each for two offences, and ordered to pay £160 victim surcharge and £1,657 towards costs, bringing his total penalty to £2,217.

Under the law, anyone applying for a private hire operator's licence must provide a legitimate local operating address to ensure the council can carry out necessary checks.

Cllr Tracey Wye, executive member for licensing at Central Bedfordshire Council, said: “This prosecution sends a clear message that we do not tolerate dishonesty from applicants. Our residents deserve confidence in the legitimacy of private hire operators, and we will always act to protect their trust. Providing false information undermines the system designed to keep businesses and customers safe, and we remain committed to ensuring that local licensing regulations are respected, safeguarding both residents and legitimate operators from fraudulent practices.”

Two offences - one under the Fraud Act 2006 and one under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/ ... _over_2000

Thanks, Mr XH558 - my normal rule of thumb is to look for the original council press release if it looks like a press rehash, but forgot on this occasion

But apart from the specific mention of the two offences, looks like the press's version of the news release is a pretty faithful rehash, so to that extent the shortcomings I suggested earlier are down to the council rather than the press

Just noticed another possibly questionable term in "bringing his total penalty to £2,217".

Not sure if the word 'penalty' is appropriate there - the word seems more akin to 'fine' rather than mostly comprising court costs here

Maybe his real address is outside the licensing area.

_________________
IDFIMH