Taxi Driver Online

Knew all this looked familiar, but I thought it was one of those formulaic pieces simply rearranged for a particular local area

But realised it was identical to a previous piece when I got to the bit about the false documents submitted to Uber

(This is on the Birmingham Live site, but the previous piece was on the Express & Star site more than a fortnight ago, but it seems longer than that because of, er, stuff that's been going on between the two articles...)

FWIW, noticed one or two wee nuances that I didn't notice first time round

(Which is basically just trying to justify the few minutes I spent pasting this on here )


Driving bans among reasons private hire drivers had taxi licences axed in 2025

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black- ... e-33073996

Dudley Council's taxi committee has been busy delivering its verdict on licence reviews and taking dodgy drivers off the roads

Private hire drivers need approval from councillors and amazingly some in Dudley want to continue working without a valid driving licence.

Local authorities issue licences for taxi drivers and committees of councillors meet regularly to consider applications.

Minutes of Dudley's Taxis Committee give an insight into some of the more incredible applications including from people who seem to believe they can operate a cab – despite being unable to legally drive.

The committee meets behind closed doors to protect the identity of applicants but a look back through records of this year's meetings tells the tales of why people have failed to be deemed 'fit and proper' to become licensed taxi drivers.

In March a person identified as SM was the subject of a licence review which found not only had his driving licence been revoked but he had failed to declare an ongoing case at Birmingham Magistrates Court.

Councillors did not accept his explanation and his taxi licence was revoked 'in the interests of public safety'.

In April, another individual, referred to as AA had his private hire driver's licence revoked after 'taking into account AA's numerous offences, his failure to declare those offences, and his Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency ( DVLA ) licence being revoked'.

In September driver SB had his private hire driver's licence revoked after his drivers licence was suspended and 'numerous offences' were put before the committee.

In February an application from driver AM was rejected after it was found he had previous convictions, including dishonesty, and he had failed to declare the offences on his application form.

AM's explanation did not impress councillors who decided he was not a fit and proper person to hold a private hire licence.

In July councillors concluded a driver referred to as MAR was not suitable to hold a private hire driver's licence after he failed to explain his 'inappropriate conduct towards female passengers and plying for hire'.

Also in July councillors found driver YM should not be allowed to renew his private hire driver's licence in the interests of public safety after he committed a serious offence by submitting false documents to Uber.

Throughout the year, after review, a number of other drivers were allowed to retain their licences but given stern warnings about their future behaviour.

Can only see one example of what I'd call an 'application' - they're all either revocations or renewals; something simply called an application I'd assume was an applicant who hadn't been licensed before, as opposed to a renewal (or revocation).

So the above paragraph makes it sound like people without a valid DVLA driving licence have been applying, and have gone to committee, but that's not correct - they're badged drivers who've been banned from driving but haven't told the council, and are thus revoked.

Don't like the use of 'revoked' in relation to the DVLA licences either, which is potentially confusable with the council's revocation - normally DVLA 'revocations' are simply referred to as 'bans'.


Another thing is why some of these cases made it to committee anyway. I mean, what was his 'explanation' that councillors didn't 'accept'. What explanation could councillors possibly have accepted if he didn't have a DVLA driving licence anyway?

There is a difference between a revocation and a ban. If your DVLA licenced is revoked you have to take another full driving test. If you are "banned" your licence to drive is suspended for a set period, no need to take another test unless the magistrates so desire, usually for DD.

It's becoming more common for DVLA doctors to determine when a drink driver can return to driving once their ban has expired.

https://www.gov.uk/driving-disqualifica ... nk-driving

_________________
IDFIMH

Ah, thanks for the information, Roy - makes sense I suppose, and not something I've ever really thought about.

But I'd guess the nuance is often lost in press reports about DVLA licence stuff, as indeed it usually is with regard to 'taxi' licensing stuff.

And I see the word 'cancellation' is often used with regard to DVLA revocations, but the word 'cancellation' is certainly rare in the context of taxi licensing revocations.

So I suppose, roughly speaking, the DVLA disqualification (as opposed to revocation) is roughly equivalent to a taxi badge suspension

Anyway, every day's a schoolday

But not this one, presumably...

But I wonder if this will affect his future medical career and aspiration to become a consultant?

The recorder certainly sounds sympathetic as regards his career


Drink driving doctor on wrong side of road badly injured cabbie in head-on smash in North Tyneside

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/no ... e-33171638

Nayer Youakim, a registrar training to be a consultant, was twice the drink drive limit when he drove into a taxi while on the wrong side of the road

A drink driving doctor left a taxi driver seriously injured after causing a head-on collision while on the wrong side of the road. Nayer Youakim, a registrar who is training to be a consultant, was double the alcohol limit when he drove onto the wrong side of Beach Road, in North Shields, and smashed into a taxi.

After causing the crash just before midnight on November 24 2024, Youakim was asked by police if he had been drinking and he replied: "Not too much, two pints". Tests at the roadside and in custody showed Youakim, who performs operations, had 72 micrograms per 100 millilitres of breath, with the limit being 35 micrograms.

Prosecutor Lucy Todd said the cabbie had just dropped off a fare before heading home and added: "He became dazed by headlights coming towards him before being crashed into." The court heard the taxi spun into the opposite side of the road and Youakim's vehicle ended up on the pavement.

Miss Todd said: "Officers attended and spoke to the driver of the vehicle, the defendant, he appeared dazed and under the influence, stating he was heading to the Coast Road when the other vehicle came into his path."

Miss Todd said the taxi driver was taken to hospital with a fractured shoulder and arm, swollen hip and suspected broken ribs. In an impact statement the victim said he was angered by what happened and faces a long road to recovery but added: "I feel very lucky to be alive."

Youakim, 37, of Lady Byron Lane, Solihull, West Midlands, admitted causing serious injury by dangerous driving and drink driving.

Recorder Mark McKone KC told him: "You are an ear, nose and throat registrar, a doctor performing surgery in three hospitals, you have done a lot of good for many people. You are training to be a consultant. Your status as a doctor is uncertain and your training as a consultant would end if you were sent to prison.

"I accept you are more likely to be suspended or struck off by the GMC if you were sent to immediate custody. I am sure you will learn from being arrested and coming to court and not offend again.

"You have got very strong personal mitigation, a lack of previous convictions and important work as a doctor. Custody would have a harmful impact on others, you are not married and you have no children but custody could have a major impact upon future patients."

Youakim, who is based at Carlisle but also works at Whitehaven and Penrith, was sentenced to 18 months suspended for two years with 250 hours unpaid work, £150 costs and a two year road ban with extended test requirement.

Laura Miller, defending, said it was an "extraordinary lapse of judgement" and added: "At the time he didn't deem himself to be on the wrong side of the carriageway, of course that is incorrect, we know that is incorrect but in the moment he wasn't trying to deliberately mislead anyone as to what happened."

Miss Miller said Youakim has genuine remorse and empathy and has sought help to understand what made him drink and then drive that night. She added: "It was an isolated incident very much out of character for him."

https://i2-prod.chroniclelive.co.uk/art ... ouakim.jpg

https://i2-prod.chroniclelive.co.uk/art ... -scene.jpg

The fella has made a massive mistake, but it would seem, reading between the judge's lines, that custody would have been very detrimental, if not fatal, to his future career, whereas a suspended sentence with unpaid work might not.

Of course, in the future he could work outside of the UK, where they may take a more lenient view.

Some are, some are most certainly not. I kind of agree with the judge, for what it's worth.

I wonder if the cabby's view, via a victim impact statement, was a rather forgiving one.

_________________
IDFIMH