Well this is an interesting article, not just because of what the driver did, but for several other reasons:
- the driver denied having been informed he was suspended;
- the council don't routinely contact the operator when drivers suspended
- high-ranking council official seems more concerned with the driver's privacy than anything else
Then there's the fact that the driver worked for a 'ride-hailing' app. Which presumably means Uber. And one councillor certainly gives the impression that it's an app-only operator.
But could it just be a more mainstream operator doing a lot of app work? I certainly wouldn't have guessed offhand that Uber would have a South Gloucestershire Council operator's licence, but presumably they'd need one to give this driver work...
Taxi driver suspended after 50 complaints continued to pick up 1,000 more passengers
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bris ... 50-9772274
Councillors raised concerns about public safety, although it's unclear what the complaints related to
A taxi driver suspended by South Gloucestershire Council after receiving 50 complaints then continued to pick up 1,000 more passengers via a ride-hailing app. Councillors raised concerns about public safety as the law doesn’t stop drivers from carrying on working, pending an appeal.
The unnamed driver appeared before a recent panel of councillors, who suspended him. He carried on working for a ride-hailing app for “at least a month or so”. Taxi drivers of both hackney carriages and private hire vehicles must apply to their local council for a licence to work.
The problem was raised during a meeting of the regulatory committee on November 14. Councillors called for the complaints process “to be tightened up”. It’s unclear what the 50 complaints related to, as these details are not routinely made available to the public.
Conservative Councillor Keith Cranney said: “If we suspend a driver, then he should be suspended, not out there working. This flags up some very serious issues. There’s not enough liaison between those app providers and our licensing officers. We have a duty of care to our travelling public, that’s why we hold licensing panels and hold our drivers to account.
“But we do need the support of those apps. I think we’re letting down the public. Here at South Glos we try our best to keep the travelling public safe. I really do feel that the complaints process with these apps needs to be tightened up.”
He mentioned the case of Christopher Halliwell, a taxi driver who picked up a passenger in Swindon in 2011 and then murdered her. Last month the family of the victim, Sian O’Callaghan, urged the government to tighten up the law and ban people with violent convictions from driving taxis.
Cllr Cranney added: “We’ve all heard of the serious case of Christopher Halliwell. This has been picked up recently by the media and the public, demanding that licensing authorities and us as councillors who sit on those committees do more to keep the public safe.”
However, once councillors decide to suspend a licence, the law allows them a 28-day appeal period during which drivers can carry on working. One council officer said: “You may disagree with it, and feel it’s unfortunate, but that’s the way the law is written.” Another problem is that the driver claimed he hadn't received letters from the council informing him of his suspension.
Liberal Democrat Cllr Chris Davies said: “The issue was that he was sent a letter, and no more. He denied receiving the letter, which is very difficult to prove. No taxi driver can exist without an address, a mobile phone and an email, and we need all three of those. If we’ve sent a letter, and a PDF by email, and an SMS saying you’ve been sent these, they cannot deny it then.”
Before the pandemic, the council used to send out suspension letters using recorded delivery, although this was stopped “because it was the post person signing the letters”, one council officer said. It’s unclear whether the council has returned back to using recorded delivery, or not. The council doesn’t inform operators if drivers are suspended, but this might happen in future.
Several times a month the council holds licensing sub-committee meetings, where councillors meet in private to discuss individual taxi drivers. These are not open to the public or press to attend. The discussion on the driver who received 50 complaints was eventually halted by a council boss.
Simon Banks, deputy head of legal governance and democratic services, said: “I’m just a little concerned about a fairly extensive public discussion about an individual driver, who has been dealt with in closed and private session. I do think we need to understand the committee’s concerns.
“There are reasons why we do licence suspension work in closed session. Not all drivers are in breach of their licences when they come to sub-committees. There will be occasions when that will not be the case and there are lots of very good reasons why there’s fair and due process.
“In terms of why people might be driving on suspension, the law doesn’t actually in most circumstances close off that right to a driver. So you can in theory drive while suspended, pending the outcome of an appeal. That’s entirely legal and lawful. Further discussion on an individual driver is not helpful.”
