I doubt this is about him being a 'fit and proper' person to drive.
More like him being 'fit and proper' to keep his plate premium.
| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| 'Worst-ever' taxi had 10 dangerous faults* http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6479 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | JD [ Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | 'Worst-ever' taxi had 10 dangerous faults* |
Yorkshire Evening Post July 4, 2007 'Worst-ever' taxi had 10 dangerous faults A TAXI had 10 serious mechanical faults including leaking brake fluid just six days after being given an MOT certificate. The cab belonging to Sohail Waheed, pictured, was so dangerous that council inspectors called in a Government agency who immediately slapped a prohibition notice on the vehicle which banned it from even being towed on a public highway. One inspector said it was the worst Hackney carriage he had ever had to examine. Magistrates heard how the people carrier was in serious danger of causing a major accident despite Mr Waheed's mechanic passing the vehicle fit to drive days earlier. Revoked Leeds City Council revoked Mr Waheed's Hackney carriage vehicle licence after finding 10 faults with the VW Sharan including a leaking brake pipe, excessive damage to suspension and shock absorbers, a twisted steering rack, frayed seat belts and faulty brake and head lights. Inspectors were also highly critical of the "filthy" state of the car. A set of steps to allow wheelchair access to the vehicle was also not working. Mr Waheed, 36, of Hilton Grove, Bradford, a taxi driver for 13 years, appeared before Leeds Magistrates Court yesterday to appeal against the decision. He claims he is a "fit and proper" person to be allowed to drive the car and that his mechanic should have identified problems with the vehicle and rectified them before it was put before a council inspection. Leeds City Council are standing by the decision. Magistrates adjourned the hearing and are expected to reach their decision later this month. __________________________ |
|
| Author: | echo15 [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: A set of steps to allow wheelchair access to the vehicle was also not working
How do you get a wheelchair up a set of steps? |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I doubt this is about him being a 'fit and proper' person to drive. More like him being 'fit and proper' to keep his plate premium.
|
|
| Author: | cabby john [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think someone needs to check the validity of the M.O.T - or was it a backhander type M.O.T
|
|
| Author: | tx_op [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
if there's one quote that hacks me off it's... " not a fit and proper person " that's no even in the bible nor the koran...who thought this s**t up ??? |
|
| Author: | JD [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sussex wrote: I doubt this is about him being a 'fit and proper' person to drive.
More like him being 'fit and proper' to keep his plate premium. Interesting situation we have here because his license has already been revoked and therefore he has no license to transfer. Before this section was amended by the Road safety act a person facing license revocation could transfer his license while awaiting a magistrates court appeal date. That luxury is no longer available so be warned if you find yourself faced with the prospect of losing your license. The best solution would be to put the license in your wifes name or that of someone you can trust. Regards JD |
|
| Author: | TDO [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Omigosh, what about the exemplary trade that restricted numbers is supposed to guarantee 
Leeds is still restricted, isn't it? |
|
| Author: | JD [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
TDO wrote: Omigosh, what about the exemplary trade that restricted numbers is supposed to guarantee
Leeds is still restricted, isn't it? Yes they are restricted and so were Burnley in 2005 when 34 of 36 tests on hackney cabs in the first six months discovered unroadworthy vehicles. Faults were found on the brakes steering and suspension with vehicles averaging 14 minor and four major problems. Regards JD |
|
| Author: | jimbo [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
JD wrote: Sussex wrote: I doubt this is about him being a 'fit and proper' person to drive. More like him being 'fit and proper' to keep his plate premium. Interesting situation we have here because his license has already been revoked and therefore he has no license to transfer. Before this section was amended by the Road safety act a person facing license revocation could transfer his license while awaiting a magistrates court appeal date. That luxury is no longer available so be warned if you find yourself faced with the prospect of losing your license. The best solution would be to put the license in your wifes name or that of someone you can trust. Regards JD[/quote "The wifes name, OR someone I can trust"? 
Was that meant to be so funny, JD? 
|
|
| Author: | cabby john [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
jimbo wrote: JD wrote: Sussex wrote: I doubt this is about him being a 'fit and proper' person to drive. More like him being 'fit and proper' to keep his plate premium. Interesting situation we have here because his license has already been revoked and therefore he has no license to transfer. Before this section was amended by the Road safety act a person facing license revocation could transfer his license while awaiting a magistrates court appeal date. That luxury is no longer available so be warned if you find yourself faced with the prospect of losing your license. The best solution would be to put the license in your wifes name or that of someone you can trust. Regards JD[/quote "The wifes name, OR someone I can trust"? Was that meant to be so funny, JD? Well spotted jimbo
|
|
| Author: | JD [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
jimbo wrote: "The wifes name, OR someone I can trust"?
Was that meant to be so funny, JD? Not everyone has a wife jimbo, therefore they would need to place their trust in someone other than a wife if they decided to circumvent the legal requirement of naming everyone with an interest in the licensed vehicle. Regards JD |
|
| Author: | jimbo [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
JD wrote: jimbo wrote: "The wifes name, OR someone I can trust"? Was that meant to be so funny, JD? Not everyone has a wife jimbo, therefore they would need to place their trust in someone other than a wife if they decided to circumvent the legal requirement of naming everyone with an interest in the licensed vehicle. Regards JD It seriously surprises me the number of proprietors who don't have a second name on their licence. Should they die suddenly the plate returns to the council. Belt and braces insurance, if you trust your partner. I thought you were making an oblique reference to the roof scene in the Shawshank Redemption..."do you trust your wife?" |
|
| Author: | 187ums [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Omigosh, what about the exemplary trade that restricted numbers is supposed to guarantee
distorting it a bit aren't you? |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
187ums wrote: Quote: Omigosh, what about the exemplary trade that restricted numbers is supposed to guarantee distorting it a bit aren't you? Methinks he was/is taking the p*** out of all of those that say what he said in relation to de-limited areas. The daft moo Dunwoody springs to mind. 
|
|
| Author: | TDO [ Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quite right - my post was clearly hyperbole. 
On the other hand, Mr 187ums said recently that we claimed that derestriction leads to high standards, when no one has ever claimed anything of the sort
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|