Taxi Driver Online

I recieved a phone call from our local Hackney office that I had been reported by a member of the public. Naturally I enquired as to what it was about - sorry cannot discuss or tell you over the phone.We agreed that I would meet them one week later, as they put it, for an interview.

So I was left to stew for a week, only consolling myself by (1) thinking if it were that serious they would have me off the road immediately and (2) Knowing in my own mind that I conduct myself properly at all times, then it cannot be that bad.

One week later I turn up at the time agreed, and I am then taken to an interview room. There was two ladies to interview me, in the room was a tape recorder (three tapes) and I was then read my rights under PACE, just as you would see on the bill (the full works), if you have never been in that situation then you will find it quite intimidating. I genuinely started to look around the room to see if it was a wind up (something like candid camera) but it was not.

My apparent dreadfull offence was that I and a few other hackney drivers had refused a fare around midnight off the street on a Saturday night Sunday morning.After much questioning I was able to repond by being reasonably able to prove that I was working elsewhere at the time of the alleged offence, this was more by luck than anything, I am sure other drivers would not have been as fortunate

What I am really peeved about, is that this was investigated on the minimum of information i.e my cab plating number only. This was a complaint from one member of the public with three apparent witnesses, between them they had (1) No description of the driver (2) No number plate digits (3)No drivers badge number, in short it was nothing more than being malicious and on that basis I am given the third degree without being given any description of the persons myself.

We can refuse people for a number of genuine reasons, but without descriptions - how would you know? I also found out that the reason they (the interviewers) would not tell a driver beforehand as to what the offence was about, was because they do not want them making up a false alibi. I have argued since, that by letting the driver know it would give him the opportunity to remember the alleged incident, as in this case 5 weeks have already passed.

I have already gone on for longer than I intended, but I feel that this type of investigation is over the top and a letter has gone in saying so, I believe that the initial interview should be to establish whether or not an offence has been committed, before we get to this stage of proceedings.

Just to put this into perspective (please forgive my example), Five young women were recently murdered so there was plenty of evidence that a crime has been committed. Through the media it was reported that a number of men were interviewed regarding this crime, But! not under caution.

Come down to Cardiff and refuse to pick up a potential passenger, and you will then be interviewed under caution.

The use of PACE in this instance surely is over the top. Any views please.

_________________
if you cannot be yourself, then who can you be.

Isnt Cardiff rife with instances of Cherrypicking?

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

The benefits to PACE interviews is that the question is recorded as well as the answer.

To many times I have attended with a member of our association and had to clarify that the answer was in response to a specific question and not the question before or after.

I wonder though, with no information about the vehicle or driver why did the council contact you ................ or did they interview every licensed driver?

B. Lucky

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.

[quote="captain cab
Isnt Cardiff rife with instances of Cherrypicking?

CC[/quote]

Yes very true, but as ever (and I am not saying you) we should not all be tarred with the same brush. I could prove at the alleged time, that I had picked up some very ordinary fares.

_________________
if you cannot be yourself, then who can you be.

The trouble with PACE is that they put you on the spot, and this to do with something that happened over 5 weeks ago. The consequence being even though I had done no wrong,I was struggling to remember, in an attempt to justify myself it would have been to easy to give the wrong answer and then be accused of lying.

With regards to the rest info,drivers etc I have no idea.

_________________
if you cannot be yourself, then who can you be.

Yes very true, but as ever (and I am not saying you) we should not all be tarred with the same brush. I could prove at the alleged time, that I had picked up some very ordinary fares.[/quote]

I'm quite sure JD will know the answer to this, and he may be of use, but isnt there a section of the 1847 act that refers to allegations not substanciated?

Although I would rather expect compensation only in the event of it going to court and the driver being aquitted.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

The un-substanciated issue relates to existing license holders spreading false tales.

As for Cabby John's tale, I would have said to the council before the meeting that I was bringing my solicitor, and if the council didn't persue me over the issue I would claim his costs from them. I would also advise no-one to attend a meeting of this sort without knowing what one is being investigated for.

And when I did attend a meeting, I would say f*** all bar hello and goodbye.

_________________
IDFIMH

The trouble with taking your own solicitor is that you are digging into your own pocket straight away. If they did not pusue the case, you have then got to spend more to claim your costs, always with the chance of losing.

I take on board your other advice re not to attend a meeting.

_________________
if you cannot be yourself, then who can you be.

I fully understand.

It's just that without our license we can't earn.

_________________
IDFIMH

As sussex said, i'd refuse to be interviewed without my solicitor. In fact i'd have refused point blank to be interviewed under pace at all.
Especially without knowing what it was about.

In such circumstances you wont be surprised to learn that as a member of the GMBPDB you would have been entitled to a solicitor free of charge.
Attending without one can only be described as inadvisable.Working without a licence might prove difficult????????
DECISIONS ARE TAKEN BY THOSE THAT ATTEND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

_________________
The views expressed by this contributor do not neccesarily reflect the policys of The GMB Nationally or of the GMB London Region.

I would prefer to be interviewed under PACE, all taped and everybody knows where they stand.
I would have just sat and listened and then gone away and thought about my answer.

_________________
stressed controller!!!

The sensible approach Rambo.

Having a solicitor in the room is useless if that solicitor knows little or nothing about up to date legislation.

Listen to the allegation and then decide, because you can be sure of one thing. If the council are interviewing you under PACE it cannot be that serious otherwise the Police would be doing it.

B. Lucky

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.

The police might not be interested, but the council LOs can take your livelyhood away.

_________________
IDFIMH

ONLY if they have just cause.

B. Lucky

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.