When will they ever learn?
If religion was the reason for refusal, he's in the wrong job. And it looks asif
he'll be looking for a new career anyway.
| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Taxi driver suspended for refusing guide dog http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9663 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | captain cab [ Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Taxi driver suspended for refusing guide dog |
Brummie News! Taxi driver suspended for refusing guide dog THE taxi driver who refused to take the fare of a blind lady because she had a guide dog has had his licence suspended by Dudley Council. As reported in last week’s Dudley News, Beacon Taxi driver Sheraz Younas was found guilty by Dudley Magistrates Court of an offence under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The two day hearing heard how 25-year-old Younas, of Buffery Road, refused to allow Lesley Elwell’s guide dog Freya in his car on December 1 last year, despite knowing she was an assistance dog. He was fined £150 and ordered to pay £1,475 costs. At a hearing at Dudley Council on September 30, Younas also had his licence suspended pending a referral to the taxis committee on October 22, when his private hire driver licence could be further suspended or revoked. Phil Tart, assistant director for law and property at Dudley Council, said: “We take this offence very seriously. Following the successful prosecution, the driver will now be referred to the taxis committee where he could face losing his licence. “In the meantime we have decided to suspend his licence in the interest of public safety.” Under the Disability Discrimination Act any drivers who refuses to take wheelchair users or passengers with a guide dog is committing a criminal offence. |
|
| Author: | jimbo [ Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
When will they ever learn? If religion was the reason for refusal, he's in the wrong job. And it looks asif he'll be looking for a new career anyway.
|
|
| Author: | GBC [ Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Taxi driver suspended for refusing guide dog |
captain cab wrote: Taxi driver suspended for refusing guide dog
|
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Blind woman takes 'taxi' chief to court over 'guide dog snub' Daily Mail! 'Refused': Toni Forrest and guide dog William, whose hairs are said to have upset other taxi passengers A taxi firm boss is being hauled before court in a landmark discrimination case after a blind woman claimed he refused to let her board his cab with her guide dog. Mustak Bhuta is being prosecuted under disability discrimination laws after Toni Forrest said he banned her from his taxis because of her five-year-old labrador William. Other customers are said to have had objected to dog hairs in the taxis. After a complaint from Miss Forrest, Bolton Council licensing department in Greater Manchester is taking action against Orlando Cars boss Bhuta, 46, in what is thought to be the first prosecution of its type. Bhuta, of Deane, denies breaking section 37A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which makes it illegal for a private hire firm to refuse to carry guide dogs. Magistrates were expected to hear his defence today but if found guilty he could face a fine of up to £1,000. The incident occurred in October last year after Miss Forrest, 40, who had spent the day teaching braille as a volunteer at the Sensory Centre in Chorley Street, Bolton, rang Bhuta's firm for one of his private hire car to take her home. Miss Forrest, who was registered blind at 21 after contracting encephalitis, said the taxi operator told her the firm would no longer be carrying her or her Labrador guide dog because drivers and other customers had complained about dog hairs. Today she praised some of the firm's drivers for their kindness in the past and insisted she had initially offered to travel in the front seat with the dog on plastic bags. She added: 'William is always clean and he never smells of anything. He's well looked after. Miss Forest said she was stunned by the operator's announcement. 'I just apologised and I didn't know what to do. I hadn't realised there had been a problem. I had to get a black cab and it was more expensive. I felt quite upset and angry.' She said: 'According to the rules a guide dog owner doesn't really have to tell the operator that they've got a guide dog when they're booking it. 'It's discrimination. I do feel that I'm being punished for being blind.' The private taxi firm which is said to have refused to served Miss Forest At an earlier hearing at Bolton Magistrates Court, Andrew Morris, prosecuting for the council, said Bhuta, when interviewed by licensing enforcement officer Duncan Peers, admitted taking the call from Miss Forrest. Bhuta, who took over the operating licence for the firm in June 2007, claimed that he had only three drivers available when Miss Forrest called, two of whom he said were not acceptable to Miss Forrest and the third who refused the fare because he is allergic to dogs. Miss Forrest denied refusing to use a driver. Mr Peers told magistrates that in an interview with Bhuta, the defendant mentioned that customers and drivers had complained about dog hairs in the vehicle and that, if travelling in the front, the dog could lick the gear stick, which is unhygienic. He also stated that on one occasion a driver had received a ticket for parking on double yellow lines while helping Miss Forrest into a building. Mr Peers added that while drivers can be exempted from the obligation to carry guide dogs if they have medical proof that it could affect their health, Bolton Council has received no application for such an exemption. |
|
| Author: | JD [ Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
jimbo wrote: When will they ever learn?
If religion was the reason for refusal, he's in the wrong job. And it looks asif he'll be looking for a new career anyway.Perhaps if every blind person with a guide dog was unleashed on the combined taxi trade it could well have the affect of controling numbers? lol Regards JD |
|
| Author: | grandad [ Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Taxi driver suspended for refusing guide dog |
captain cab wrote: “In the meantime we have decided to suspend his licence in the interest of public safety.” How very strange. He was fined for an offense under disability discrimination but the council suspend his license "in the interest of public safety." They may have offered him a way out with that one.
|
|
| Author: | JD [ Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Taxi driver suspended for refusing guide dog |
grandad wrote: How very strange. He was fined for an offense under disability discrimination but the council suspend his license "in the interest of public safety." They may have offered him a way out with that one.
They have to put their reason in writing, no doubt the driver will appeal within the 21 day time frame? ______________________________ Lets look at the legislation in respect of the 1976 and 1847 acts. 61 Suspension and revocation of drivers' licences (1) Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1847 or in this Part of this Act, a district council may suspend or revoke or (on application therefor under section 46 of the Act of 1847 or section 51 of this Act, as the case may be) refuse to renew the licence of a driver of a hackney carriage or a private hire vehicle on any of the following grounds— (a) that he has since the grant of the licence— (i) been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty, indecency or violence; or (ii) been convicted of an offence under or has failed to comply with the provisions of the Act of 1847 or of this Part of this Act; or (b) any other reasonable cause. (2) (a) Where a district council suspend, revoke or refuse to renew any licence under this section they shall give to the driver notice of the grounds on which the licence has been suspended or revoked or on which they have refused to renew such licence within fourteen days of such suspension, revocation or refusal and the driver shall on demand return to the district council the driver's badge issued to him in accordance with section 54 of this Act. (b) If any person without reasonable excuse contravenes the provisions of this section he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [level 1 on the standard scale]. [(2A) Subject to subsection (2B) of this section, a suspension or revocation of the licence of a driver under this section takes effect at the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which notice is given to the driver under subsection (2)(a) of this section. (2B) If it appears that the interests of public safety require the suspension or revocation of the licence to have immediate effect, and the notice given to the driver under subsection (2)(a) of this section includes a statement that that is so and an explanation why, the suspension or revocation takes effect when the notice is given to the driver.] (3) Any driver aggrieved by a decision of a district council under [subsection (1) of]4 this section may appeal to a magistrates' court. 1 This can include allegations of criminal conduct which either have not been tried in a criminal court or are still to be tried: see McCool v Rushcliffe BC [1998] 3 All ER 889 and Leeds City Council v Hussain [2003] RTR 199. 3 Sub-ss (2A), (2B): inserted by the Road Safety Act 2006, s 52(1), (2). 4 Words “subsection (1) of” in square brackets inserted by the Road Safety Act 2006, s 52(1), (3). _________________________ Regards JD |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Taxi driver suspended for refusing guide dog |
captain cab wrote: “In the meantime we have decided to suspend his licence in the interest of public safety.”
Not sure that's the case in this instance. 
|
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Guide dog row taxi boss cleared 8:30am Thursday 9th October 2008 Bolton News! A TAXI firm boss has been cleared of breaking disability laws by refusing to carry a blind woman and her guide dog in one of his cars. Mustak Bhuta, who runs Orlando Cars in Thynne Street, was accused of breaking the Disability Discrimination Act in what is thought to be the first prosecution of its kind. Yesterday he accused the council of wasting public money as he walked free from Bolton Magistrates Court, where he had been supported by 17 of his taxi driver friends. Had he been convicted, Mr Bhuta could have faced a fine of up to £1,000. Speaking outside court, he said: “What has happened here today should never have come to court at all. “I’m the joint chairman of the Bolton Private Hire Association and I go to panel hearings in the town hall. “The council should have dealt with it at consultory panel meetings. I wasn’t discriminating at all, and it’s a waste of public monies.” The case is expected to cost taxpayers several thousand pounds. Bolton Magistrates heard that Toni Forrest, aged 40, who is blind, phoned Orlando Cars to book a taxi on October 30 last year. She was accompanied by her four-year-old labrador guide dog William. Section 37A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 makes it illegal for a private hire firm to refuse to carry assistance dogs. Mr Bhuta, aged 46, of Hawthorne Street, Deane, said he had advised Miss Forrest to use another taxi firm on October 30 because he had no cars available. He said: “I told her that I had no drivers who could take care of the job, and to use another taxi firm.” Magistrates told him: “We don’t believe that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the assistance dog and not the unavailability of cars which was the reason for refusal.” |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
captain cab wrote: Magistrates told him: “We don’t believe that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the assistance dog and not the unavailability of cars which was the reason for refusal.”
Some might say the mush had a right result, and some may say the council f***ed up the prosecution. And some might even say both.
|
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sussex wrote: captain cab wrote: Magistrates told him: “We don’t believe that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the assistance dog and not the unavailability of cars which was the reason for refusal.” Some might say the mush had a right result, and some may say the council f***ed up the prosecution. And some might even say both. I tend to think your right. CC |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|