Taxi Driver Online

A bit more detail would be good to know, perhaps - like which local authority prosecuted him for plying for hire


Private hire driver loses licence after misleading council

https://www.westnorthants.gov.uk/news/p ... ng-council

A private hire driver has had his licence revoked and been ordered to pay costs of £1,640 after being described as not a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

On 14 February 2025, Northampton Crown Court upheld the West Northamptonshire Council (WNC) Licensing Sub-Committee’s decision to revoke the driver’s private hire licence, following the driver misleading the Council in relation to proceedings being taken against him in a neighbouring authority.

Mohammed Badrul Alam of Tomlinson Avenue, Luton, failed to declare his prosecution and subsequent conviction for plying for hire (accepting passengers without a pre-booking) and driving without insurance. In addition, Mr Alam had a history of licensing and driving complaints on his record, including a complaint from a passenger who was so frightened by Mr Alam driving at 100mph that they phoned their relatives from the taxi to say they loved them.

Northamptonshire’s Magistrates’ Court initially upheld the Council’s decision to revoke his licence which was then further appealed by Mr Alam to the Crown Court, where Her Honour Judge Lucking said that Mr Alam was not found to be an honest witness and his explanation that he was planning to tell the council about his convictions once his penalty points were added to his licence was highly implausible. He was ordered to pay £1,500 in costs, which is in addition to £140.00 from the Magistrates’ Court appeal. Susan Desfontaines appeared for WNC in the Magistrates Court, and Nicki Agalamanyi represented WNC in the Crown Court, both are advocates from the in-house Legal Services Team.


"“The safety of residents and passengers who use private-hire and taxi services is paramount to us, and the majority of drivers conduct themselves to the highest standards. Our officers work hard to ensure that these standards are met, and we are pleased that the Crown Court has upheld our decision.”"

Cllr Matt Golby, WNC’s Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Adult Care, Public Health and Regulatory Services

His address is given as Luton, so he's licensed almost 40 miles from home, and there's Milton Keynes between them...

So may well have been working cross-border, and thought he'd chance his arm with a bit of plying for hire

Didn't work out for him, obviously, but considering the two court appeals, he seems to have gotten off quite lightly with costs.

Which, apropos stuff in another thread, maybe indicates why councils don't carry out costly prosecutions lightly?

i wonder if there is perhaps a better solution with a sort of small claims system for this sort of thing which might make it easier (and cheaper) for councils to be proactive in such matters

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

Are you sure?

Methinks your mind is being muddled by that TaxiPoint survey.

_________________
IDFIMH

Well I can't really think of any, Sussex, and couldn't find any recent ones using the search thingy, but I prepare to be enlightened

As for my mind being muddled by the TaxiPoint survey, I've got every detail under control

Apart from, say, reading stuff I'd written a couple of days ago, and not having the slightest recollection of it, and not having the foggiest what I'm on about

I mean, just remembered the stuff about all these HCDs everywhere using Uber , which I'd completely and utterly forgotten about. And it seems like weeks ago, but actually just a few days

Thought I'd only looked at about four pages of the TaxiPoint survey, but, er, it's actually about seven

I think you misread the article and so mistitled the thread Stuart.

Council revoked, Magistrates upheld the revocation, Appeal at Crown Court also upheld.

At no point was the revocation overturned.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

Yes, bang on Chris - not sure why I misconstrued that, because it would have been quite an unusual scenario, and the council's press release is quite straightforward on the point - in too much of a hurry, I suspect, and misread 'one' word, maybe, and then the whole thing was wrongly cemented in my head

But I see Sussex being a bit vague in his reponse - I thought he was questioning whether similar scenarios had been posted on here recently, not that I'd misconstrued the council's press release

(And changed the thread title and edited the first post accordingly, and just hope no one else notices )

_________________
IDFIMH