Surprised nobody pointed out the usual 'lazy journalist' error of portraying the financial 'penalty' incurred as a
fine - I'd guess only a small part of the sum incurred was actually a fine, and most of it would have represented costs

:
The press wrote:
In his absence, Hussain was banned from driving for two years and was ordered to pay a fine, costs and surcharge totalling £4,671.
In fact, it's probably not down to 'lazy journalism' rather than 'inaccurate journalism' - or maybe, like the use of the word 'taxi', it's done deliberately for the purposes of the headline and to aid public understanding rather than intended to be 100% technically correct.
Anyway, the official Oldham Council news release contains a more accurate headline:
Unlicensed taxi driver ordered to pay more than £4,600https://www.oldham.gov.uk/news/article/ ... _than_4600