Interesting tale, but would be interesting to see the CCTV footage of the actual driving
But recall that it was the same council who revoked the driver for paying for sex a few weeks ago (let's do the same with MPs, say
).And can you real 'burgle' a taxi?
Taxi driver has licence revoked after 'rapid pursuit' of cyclist through streets
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/po ... ts-4961397
A taxi driver has had his private hire vehicle licence revoked following a ‘rapid pursuit’ that occurred in Stockton.
The taxi driver had been registered with Middlesbrough Council since January 16, 2024. His licence had been due to expire on December 31, 2024. It was instead revoked in November by Middlesbrough Council’s licensing committee.
The driver appeared before members of the committee because “concerns” had been raised over his suitability to be a licensed private hire driver.
Middlesbrough Council’s licensing committee members “were advised that on June 10, 2024, Stockton Council provided CCTV footage to Middlesbrough Council’s licensing officers which appeared to show a Middlesbrough licensed taxi being driven in a manner that fell far below the standard of what was expected of a licensed hackney carriage or private hire driver”, the meeting’s minutes explained.
At 12.35am on June 9, a vehicle “strongly suspected” of being a Middlesbrough private hire vehicle was seen on Yarm Lane in Stockton. The vehicle drove onto West Row.
Two men could be seen on the CCTV footage, one was riding a bike, the other was carrying a transparent bag with a dog. The minutes said: “The male with the dog appeared to engage one of the occupants of the vehicle in conversation. A few seconds later a male passenger could be seen leaving the taxi and running after the male cyclist who gathered speed to exit the area covered by the CCTV camera.”
The confirmed minutes from the meeting added: “The CCTV footage then located the male riding the push bike travel past the Thomas Sheraton pub along Bridge Street at 12.36am. Shortly after this, at 12.37am, separate CCTV footage showed the taxi in rapid pursuit of the male cyclist in Park Terrace. The taxi was unable to catch up with him. At 12.42am, the CCTV operator located the same taxi driving along Boathouse Lane.”
Additional information in the minutes said: “Further CCTV footage showed the driver in rapid pursuit of the cyclist, chasing them in a dangerous manner across a car park, before the cyclist managed to make an escape across a pavement and onto another road.”
On August 21, 2024, the driver in question attended Middlesbrough House and confirmed that the car captured by the CCTV footage was indeed driven by him.
At November’s committee meeting, members were shown the CCTV footage. “The male cyclist identified in the CCTV footage was previously known to the driver. The individual in question had previously burgled the driver’s taxi and stolen items of sentimental value”, the minutes explained.
The driver had finished his shift, so at the time of the incident, the passengers in his taxi were “associates” and the encounter with the cyclist was by “coincidence rather than design”. The minutes added: “The driver drove to Boat House lane as one of his associates needed the toilet. It was also clarified the driver had not had any interaction with the cyclist since the incident as the cyclist was now in prison.”
The minutes did take note of the fact that before the incident in question, the driver had a clean driving licence and there had been no other incidents or criminal convictions.
Reasons given for the revoking of the private hire licence included:
- - The driver appeared to run a red light and the committee believed he made excuses for his driving, rather than taking responsibility.
- Based on the evidence presented to them, the committee decided the driver was “dishonest”.
- The committee took the view the driver was “lying” to licensing officers when he told the officers “he was being pressured by unknown customers to chase the cyclist”.
- The driver had claimed that on the night in question that “he was on a job”, this turned out not to be the case.
- The committee believed that the driving demonstrated in the CCTV was “dangerous and erratic”.
The committee deemed that the driver was not a ‘fit and proper’ person, so the driver’s licence was revoked with immediate effect for the safety of the public.