Taxi Driver Online

Echoes of the Blackpool Gazette articles here - trawling through council minutes looking for juicy application/revocation hearings

Or like the Glasgow reports, except that they seem to be reported at the time, and there's presumably a reporter at the licensing meetings.

Interesting cases, though.


Cocaine, speeding and Sainsbury's row allegations put paid to drivers' hopes for taxi licences

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/tees ... s-30872320

Three separate motorists were denied private hire or hackney carriages by Stockton Council because of their troubles

Three drivers have been denied taxi licences because of allegations ranging from cocaine possession and speeding to an angry row in a supermarket.

The motorists faced separate hearings before Stockton Council's licensing committee. They saw their private hire or hackney carriages revoked or refused, minutes from the committee's meetings show.

In one case, a driver applied for a private hire vehicle driver's licence, which he was refused in 2017 because of two previous convictions for drugs possession. On the first occasion in 2011, he was stopped by police on Durham Road, Stockton and said "an acquaintance had given him the cocaine to try".

The second time in 2012, he told officers he was "removed from a premises due to his argumentative behaviour", arrested for being drunk and disorderly, then awoke in a police station to be told cocaine had been found on him. He said in an interview he had experimented with cocaine in 2009 but no longer used it.

He told the committee he believed he was a fit and proper person to hold a taxi licence as he had worked with the public and dealt with vulnerable people without issues or complaints. He previously worked as a door supervisor where he looked after drunk people, dealt with fights and helped police to detain suspects.

Now, he said he was a senior engineer, "always helped people" and no longer drank. However the committee refused his application because of the convictions.

In the case of the second driver, councillors considered whether he could still hold a hackney carriage licence after he was stopped by council licensing and Cleveland Police road policing officers on September 27 last year. He was seen driving at an estimated 40 to 47mph on 30mph Norton Road at 12.30am before he was stopped on Norton High Street.

'Not believable'

The meeting minutes say: "It was clear... something was distracting the driver, as on at least three occasions the vehicle crossed the central white line and drove onto the other side of the road." Officers heard a video playing and light from a screen in the taxi.

The driver paused the video playing on the car's screen, and was given a ticket despite protesting he would not do it again and asking to "let him off this one time". He said he was swerving to avoid potholes - though officers found none - or parked cars, and only turned on a news video when he stopped but it was not playing while he was driving.

Officers found his account "not believable". He was previously given written warnings for his attitude, rudeness to passengers, mobile phone use and manner of driving in 2006 and 2012, and had his licence suspended in 2015 after he suffered a heart attack.

He denied speeding and did not admit watching a news channel, saying he made a mistake not turning the screen off. He also denied using a phone while driving.

In his case, the committee found it was more likely than not he was speeding, finding him "disingenuous and defensive" while a licensing officer was reliable. They found the motorist was "very assertive" to officers, gave "dubious explanations" and had a "concerning history", revoking his licence.

'Saw a bit of red' in Sainsbury's

Finally they considered the case of a third driver, who had received complaints from members of the public including three staff members at Sainsbury's on Marske Parade, Bishopsgarth, Stockton. He came into the store after staff refused to sell his passenger alcohol, believing her to be drunk, "clinging on to the shelves" and aggressive, on July 18 last year.

There was a "verbal altercation" between the driver and a member of staff, with CCTV showing him "becoming increasingly angry, gesturing and pointing". The staff member said he called her "disgusting", was nasty to her and told her she would lose her job.

The driver told the committee the passenger was a friend, had just come out of hospital and he did not believe she was drunk. He apologised saying he "saw a bit of red" after seeing her upset, was trying to look after her, was not working at the time and was just giving her a lift with her shopping, so he could not understand why the council were considering it.

'Bad day' in school run outburst

The committee heard he was already on notice after an incident recorded by a member of the public two months earlier. This was described as a "verbal altercation with another road user during a school run" where he was heard "shouting and swearing aggressively" and threatening to damage a car, seen by a vulnerable child passenger in his taxi.

He agreed to go on an anger management course after this argument in May 2024. He described the row to the committee as "a bad day at the office", apologised and said he was ashamed and horrified at his behaviour, but claimed the woman in the school run incident provoked him, drove in front of him, refused to move and blocked his path.

Councillors heard how he was given a written warning in 2017, referring to two previous historic convictions for being drunk and disorderly and an incident where he "lost his temper with a council admin officer and used inappropriate language".

A private hire operator gave him a reference saying he was a "pleasant and good driver". He said he was sorry, had "one bad day in his career" and told the committee he would behave and be a better person is they let him keep his licence.

But councillors noted his "lack of insight", found him aggressive at times in response to questioning.

They found his assertion about helping a friend "irrelevant" and did not think they could ensure he was a safe and suitable driver, revoking his private hire licence immediately.

In all cases, the committee members were "not satisfied that they would allow people for whom they care to enter a vehicle" with the men. They concluded the men were not fit and proper people to hold the relevant licence.