Taxi Driver Online

Well I'm sure there are heavier punishments than this, but he's now got eight points on his DVLA licence.

And no word of his badge...

And don't want to sweat the usual distinction between fines and other financial penalties sort of stuff, but they're even contradicting their own terminology in the bullet points at the top here

(And although he's got a dual badge, this makes it sound like he was actually driving an HC at the time...)


Bracknell Taxi driver fined after offering illegal rides in Reading

• Bracknell-licensed taxi driver fined nearly £750 for illegally operating in Reading
• The offence occurred during a council test purchase operation in December 2024
• Ordered to pay almost £750 in fines and costs

https://media.reading.gov.uk/news/brack ... in-reading

A Private Hire and Hackney Carriage taxi driver licensed in Bracknell has been ordered to pay almost £750 by magistrates after Reading Licensing officers caught him illegally plying for hire in the town centre.

Asghar Ali, of Willow Drive, Bracknell, pleaded guilty at Reading Magistrates Court on 20 June 2025 and was convicted of two offences.

Magistrates heard how, on 4 December 2024, Council Licensing officers conducting a test purchase operation approached Mr Ali’s vehicle that was stopped on Friar Street, where he agreed to take them to an address in Wokingham for £35 without the required prior booking.

Although Mr Ali is a licensed Hackney Carriage driver, the conditions of his licence only entitle him to pick up customers without a booking in Bracknell, where he is licensed. Any rides accepted outside of this area invalidate his insurance, putting passengers at risk in the event of an accident.

At sentencing, Mr Ali was given credit for his early guilty plea and cooperation at interview. He was fined £392 for operating without insurance and handed eight penalty points on his driving licence. For the offence of plying for hire, he was given no separate penalty. He was also required to pay a victim surcharge of £157, as well as a contribution towards the prosecution costs of £200.

Mr Ali pleaded guilty and was convicted of:

• Use of a motor vehicle without insurance, contrary to Section 143(1)(a) and Section 143(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
• Plying for Hire, Contrary to Section 45 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847.

Cllr John Ennis, Lead Councillor for Climate Strategy and Transport, said:

“Thanks to the proactive work of Reading’s Licensing team, another driver operating unlawfully has been successfully prosecuted.

“Illegal plying for hire will not be tolerated in Reading. We will continue to take firm action against any driver who disregards the rules, maintaining the integrity of licensed taxi services in Reading and ensuring that residents and visitors can travel with confidence and peace of mind.”

his vehicle would have been insured as a Hackney so the no insurance is an invalid charge surely ?

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

No doubt his insurance requires that he stays within the rules of his licence, both DVLA and Hackney.

He didn't do that, so Q.E.D, insurance is invalid.

_________________
Chris The Fish

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

I think we've seen plenty of cases where the insurance is valid in instances of 3rd party claims

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

I'm guessing the evidence from the LOs was enough to prove non-compliance and so insufficient cover (if any). If there was a way around it, a decent solicitor would probably have tried.

General condition on my cover -

Licensing and Local Authority Regulations

You and any named driver, who is using the insured vehicle for profit, must at all times be in possession of a valid Private/Public Hire Licence, comply with the local authority licencing regulations and the insured vehicle must display a valid licence plate in accordance with such regulations. Failure to comply with these terms may result in all cover under this policy being cancelled and of no effect except for cover as strictly required by the Road Traffic Acts.

I think the final sentence there is saying that, even assuming comprehensive cover is invalidated by plying for hire (or whatever), third-party insurance will still be in place.

But driving without insurance is a fairly common charge in scenarios like this, although usually relating to private hire drivers plying for hire.

But if there's always third-party cover available even if the policy conditions are breached, how can they be driving without insurance?