Sounds a bit of a daftie
And fundamental to all this is that CCTV is mandatory in Southampton.
Southampton taxi driver loses licence after complaints
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/266859 ... omplaints/
A taxi driver accused of overcharging passengers, driving recklessly and using his mobile phone at the wheel has been stripped of his licence.
The allegations followed a journey from the Port of Southampton to a hotel at Heathrow Airport.
The passenger alleged the meter showed around £210 at the end of the trip but that the driver demanded £300, citing a surcharge for more than four passengers.
The driver disputed the allegations, saying passengers had been told about the surcharge beforehand and denying using his phone or driving recklessly.
However, Southampton City Council’s licensing sub-committee ultimately revoked his hackney carriage driver’s licence after finding he had deliberately moved the vehicle’s CCTV camera into a position which made it "inoperative".
The sub-committee said this was its “greatest concern”, concluding “this was a deliberate act” and adding: “There is no excuse for a deliberate action which makes the camera inoperable.”
The issue with the camera only came to the attention of the local authority following the passenger's complaint about their long taxi journey on July 11.
Licensing officers subsequently examining the vehicle's CCTV found the camera had been obscured for four days, leaving footage captured during that period unusable.
An officer’s report said footage showed the driver pushing the camera on its axis, although he could provide no explanation and said he had no reason to do it.
The driver later maintained the camera had been moved accidentally and said he had believed it was permissible to obscure it while using the licensed vehicle privately.
A second complaint was subsequently made over another journey concerning allegations of double charging, “overselling” and the driver's behaviour, which he also disputed.
Since the council’s complaint recording system began in 2013, 17 entries had been recorded regarding the driver and his vehicle, including claims of overcharging, aggression and refusing fares.
The records also included a compliment from street pastors commending the support he offered.
The sub-committee said the number of complaints was “more than would normally be expected” and showed “a pattern of behaviour regarding interactions with customers leading to complaints”.
It described his explanation over the camera as “unconvincing” and said neither a warning nor suspension was sufficient.
Correctly operating taxi cameras were “fundamental to public safety”, it said.
The driver has a statutory right of appeal to the magistrates’ court.
