Taxi Driver Online

This is a bit unclear - initially reads like he failed MoT and then failed the retest, but the two failures are eight months apart, apparently - maybe it just means he had two failures, with one pass inbetween, but used the car before passing the retest on the second occasion


Taxi driver took passengers despite MOT warning car had “dangerous defects”

A 70-YEAR-OLD taxi driver from Wellesbourne took passengers - including children on the school-run - despite his car having twice failed its MOT.

Stratford District Council’s licensing panel was told the driver covered more than 1,300 miles, despite two MOT failures in eight months. The notice on one of the MOT failures stated that the vehicle was not safe to drive as it had dangerous defects.

Councillors on the panel said there had been a safety risk to both passengers and vulnerable children being transported to school.

It also found the driver was no longer “a fit and proper person to hold a licence”.

The driver had received warnings for other breaches of his licence, the council said.

The driver did not appeal the decision and is no longer licensed.

A second driver from Stratford had his taxi licence suspended following allegations of careless driving and for refusing a fare.

Stratford District Council’s licensing panel heard that a 52-year-old taxi driver “caused a risk to the safety of himself and other road users”.

The incident was captured on CCTV. According to SDC documents, the driver double-parked at the bottom of Bridge Street, facing against the flow of traffic, causing other road users to brake and manoeuvre to avoid his vehicle. He then drove against the flow of traffic, turned and parked facing against the flow of traffic on the opposite side of the road.

SDC added that he “also failed to meet his duty of care and refused to take a fare without reasonable excuse to a potential passenger”.

The driver received a 28-day suspension.

Cllr Lorraine Grocott, chair of the licensing panel, said: “The safety of the public is paramount when passengers are being transported in vehicles licensed by the district council. The authority has to ensure its drivers are fit and proper to hold a licence and that their vehicles are kept in a safe and roadworthy condition.

“On this occasion, both drivers failed to adhere to the conditions of their licence and subsequently were issued with the respective decisions by the licensing panel.”

Maybe I'm just reading it too literally (and fact if you read it literally it can be construed as saying he didn't use an MoT failure to on school runs at all - just that the car was used for school runs but had failed two MoTs).

But the minutes suggest he simply failed two MoTs, and both times used the car before it was retested and passed. And one of the failures involved defects marked 'dangerous'. And the 1,300 miles he covered is presumably the total of the two different periods

So the minutes are a bit clearer than the press report (which is based on an official council press release).

But still not the clearest explanation, in my opinion

So had a look at the agenda papers, and check out the nick of this document - 44 pages, and apart from the first three, they're all marked 'intentionally left blank' or 'restricted'

Hope no-one actually prints these things out

I suspect he failed the first one but carried on working. Maybe the vehicle was a second taxi/PH that he used occasionally.

I also suspect the 1,300 miles between two failed MOTs raised questions as to what he was doing with his iffy motor.

_________________
IDFIMH

For what it's worth, this is the link to the mostly blank agenda papers I forgot to include earlier

https://democracy.stratford.gov.uk/docu ... l.pdf?T=10