Taxi Driver Online

Another one from Tewkesbury - obviously another council quite gung ho about pursuing prosecutions in the criminal courts

This is a bit confusing, and requires careful reading, but there isn't really much stuff about the substantive details.

But at first glance I thought this was about two completely separate cases

Then I assumed Mr Casey was the vehicle owner (no relation, presumably ), but it looks like he was actually just the private hire operator and Mr Baxter was the owner-driver.

But obviously Mr Casey had no system in place to check that his owner-drivers were adequately licensed.

But the real daftie here looks like the owner-driver Mr Baxter. The stuff about the bus lane violation and subsequently continuing to use the vehicle as a PHV when he became aware it wasn't licensed is just

And, I mean, how does an owner-driver not realise his car is unlicensed, and when he finds out continues to use it?

Only thing I can think of is that it was some very technical oversight rather than just using an unplated vehicle as we'd normally understand it. But if it is a very technical thing, that certainly doesn't come out in the press release.

(And presumably the owner-driver was adequately badged, and just wasn't plated. Or perhaps he literally did have a plate attached, but it wasn't valid, for whatever reason...)


Private hire licensing prosecution

https://tewkesbury.gov.uk/private-hire- ... osecution/

Tewkesbury Borough Council has successfully prosecuted two individuals for offences relating to licensing and operating private hire vehicles.

On Monday, 18 March 2024, Mr Gareth Casey, owner of Casey’s Transfers, pleaded guilty to operating a private hire vehicle that was not licensed. On the same day, Mr Robert Baxter pleaded guilty to driving a private hire vehicle that was not licensed. Both Mr Casey and Mr Baxter were fined £500 and ordered to pay victim surcharge of £200. They were also ordered to each pay £500 costs to the council.

In March 2023, Mr Baxter received a penalty charge notice for a bus lane violation. In June 2023, he requested confirmation from Tewkesbury Borough Council of his vehicle’s private hire licence to enable him to challenge the violation, however he was informed by the council that the vehicle was not licensed for private hire work. Nonetheless, Mr Baxter continued to use his vehicle for private hire work until September 2023.

Mr Casey explained he was not aware that the vehicle was not licensed and that he did not make the adequate checks with his driver, Mr Baxter. Enquiries revealed that the unlicensed vehicle had been used for over 100 bookings between January and September 2023.

Tewkesbury Borough Council’s Director of Communities, Peter Tonge, said “We are committed to enforcing private hire licensing regulations and conduct thorough checks to make sure all licence holders are safe and suitable to carry out private hire work.

“I’d like to remind all operators and drivers of private hire vehicles to adhere to these regulations in order to uphold standards and trust in our community.”

The prosecution was brought by Tewkesbury Borough Council’s licensing team with assistance from both the council’s Counter Fraud and Enforcement Unit and One Legal, a legal service shared by Cheltenham Borough Council, Gloucester City Council, Stroud District Council and Tewkesbury Borough Council.

Anyone can report their concerns regarding unlicensed taxis or private hire vehicles online by visiting Taxi and Private Hire – Tewkesbury Borough Council.

you don't not realise your license has run out total BS from Mr casey

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

Join the campaign to get April fools jokes banned for 364 days a year !

Edders, as I said, the article requires careful reading

You make it sound like it was Mr Casey who didn't realise the licence had run out. It was actually Mr Baxter who was the owner-driver, who would have been primarily the one to know it was unlicensed. Of course, Mr Casey as the despatch operator should have had adequate procedures in place to flag up the fact that it wasn't licensed, but he obviously didn't (or perhaps did know, but just ignored it).

Also, there's nothing definite in the piece to say that the vehicle licence had 'run out'. It just says that the vehicle wasn't licensed, which could mean several different things.

Which is why I wondered whether it wasn't just the usual straightforward scenario of an expired licence still being used, or something not licensed in the first place.

I mean, in either of the two usual scenarios, who'd be daft enough to contact the council to confirm the licensing status so they could challenge a bus lane ticket?

Of course, a third obvious scenario is that Baxter is that daft

Yeah right.

_________________
IDFIMH

Sussex, I could just about imagine Mr Casey being on the level here - after all, it wasn't his car, and no doubt a lot of despatch office proprietors just leave licensing to the owner-drivers, and just assume that the latter are badged and plated unless there's obvious evidence to the contrary. (And despite what the rules may say in terms of the despatch operation's responsibilities in that regard.)

But it's the owner-driver Mr Baxter who I can't get my head around - he asked the council to confirm his PHV plate status so he could challenge a bus lane ticket, and only then the council told him the vehicle wasn't licensed