Just have a look at the guy at 5.1
Is it me, or did he get away lightly?

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF REGULATORY SERVICES
TO THE LICENSING COMMITTEE
18 NOVEMBER 2009
ALL WARDS
PROSECUTIONS & CAUTIONS – AUGUST & SEPTMBER 2009
1. Summary
1.1 This report summarises the outcome of legal proceedings involving 5 cases, resulting in fines of £820 and prosecution costs of £1,040, 6 penalty points and 94 simple cautions.
2. Recommendation
2.1 That the report be noted.
Contact Officer: Ann Alliband, Principal Officer, Legal Proceedings
Telephone: 0121 303 9153
E-Mail: ann.alliband@birmingham.gov.uk
Ref: LIC/2472
04/11/2009
3. HACKNEY CARRIAGE
3.1 Khalid Mahmood, 45 Roland Road, Lozells, Birmingham
Pleaded guilty on 18th September 2009 at Birmingham Magistrates Court to 1 offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 of using a Hackney Carriage on Broad Street, when the vehicle was uninsured.
Fined £290
Disqualified from driving for 12 months
Costs £490 (Requested £490)
Total £780
RTA (The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine not exceeding £5,000 and 6 – 8 penalty points)
LGMPA (The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine not exceeding £1,000)
4. PRIVATE HIRE
4.1 Mohammed Nasir, 56 Valley Road, Lye, West Midlands
Pleaded guilty on 23rd September 2009 at Birmingham Magistrates Court to 2 offences: 1 under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 of plying for hire on Smallbrook Queensway and 1 offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 of driving without insurance. The defendant pleaded not guilty to 1 offence under the Fraud Act 2006 of having in his possession, custody or control, signage for Castle Cars for use in connection with a fraud, namely by falsely representing that he was a licensed private hire driver.
Fraud Act – Found not guilty
Town Police Clauses Act – Fined £250
Road Traffic Act – 6 penalty points
Costs £150 (Requested £508.39)
Total £400
TPCA (The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine not exceeding £2,500)
RTA (The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine not exceeding £5,000 and 6 – 8 penalty points)
4.2 Arfan Khan, 43 Serpentine Road, Aston, Birmingham
Pleaded guilty on 25th September 2009 at Birmingham Magistrates Court to 1 offence under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 of failing to display his private hire driver’s badge in a manner as to be plainly and distinctly visible. The badge was in the arm rest of the vehicle.
Fined £105
Costs £100 (£150 requested)
Total £205
(The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine not exceeding £1,000)
Ref: LIC/2472
04/11/2009
4.3 Shahid Razzaq, 161 Robin Hood Lane, Hall Green, Birmingham
Pleaded guilty on 30th September 2009 at Birmingham Magistrates Court to 2 offences: 1 under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 of plying for hire on Ludgate Hill on 27th November 2008 and 1 offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 of driving without insurance.
Fined £175 (no separate financial penalty for no insurance offence)
Costs £300 (Requested £575)
+ 6 penalty points
Total £475
TPCA (The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine not exceeding £2,500)
RTA (The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine not exceeding £5,000 and 6 – 8 penalty points)
5. BIRMINGHAM CROWN COURT
5.1 Nadeem Iqbal Chaudry, 16 Laxey Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Crown Court to 10 counts: 1 under the Forgery & Counterfeiting Act 1981 of using an instrument, namely a Pakistani passport, in the name of Abdul Ghaffar which he knew to be false, with the intention of inducing Barclays Bank to accept it as genuine and open a bank account in the false identity of Abdul Ghaffar; 6 counts under the Theft Act 1968 of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception, namely the opportunity to earn remuneration as a licensed private hire driver, by means of an application to Birmingham City Council for a private hire drivers licence in the name of Abdul Ghaffar; 2 under the Fraud Act 2006; (1) of dishonestly making a false representation to Premium First, namely that he was Abdul Ghaffar with the intention of making a gain for himself or exposing another to a risk of loss by entering into a credit agreement, (2) making a gain for himself by making a false representation to Birmingham City Council, namely that particulars on an application form were correct and thereby obtaining a private hire drivers licence in the name of Abdul Ghaffar; and 1 offence under the Identity Cards Act 2006 of having in his possession an identity document, namely a UK driving licence in the name of Abdul Gaffar that was improperly obtained. Sentenced on 7th August 2009.
12 months imprisonment suspended for 2 years
12 months supervision order, 240 hours of unpaid work
Disqualified from driving for 6 months
(Forgery & Counterfeiting Act 1981 Section 3 - on summary conviction a fine not exceeding £5,000 or a maximum of 6 months imprisonment or both; conviction on indictment to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years)
(Theft Act 1968 Section 16 – conviction on indictment to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years)
Ref: LIC/2472
04/11/2009
(Fraud Act 2006 Section 2 - on summary conviction a fine not exceeding £5,000 or a maximum of 12 months imprisonment or both; conviction on indictment to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years or a fine or both)
(Identity Cards Act 2006 - on summary conviction a fine not exceeding £5,000 or a maximum of 12 months imprisonment or both; conviction on indictment to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 2 years or a fine or both)
6. SIMPLE CAUTIONS
During the period of August and September 2009 a total of 94 offenders received a simple caution after due consideration had been given to the Cautioning of Offenders Home Office Circular.
A simple caution may only be administered if there has been a proper obtained admission of guilt by the offender/offending company.
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976
Section 48(5) 10 defendants were cautioned for failing to display their private hire vehicle plates.
Section 54(2) 9 defendants were cautioned for failing to display their private hire drivers badge.
Section 54(2) & 48(6) 2 defendants were cautioned for failing to display their private hire drivers badge and failing to display their private hire vehicle licence plate.
Section 56(3) 2 defendant was cautioned for failing to keep records as an operator of private hire vehicles.
Section 57 17 defendants were cautioned for making a false statement in applications for licences.
Section 64(3) 2 defendants was cautioned for waiting on a hackney carriage stand.
Birmingham City Council Act 1990
Section 6(1) 1 defendant was cautioned for carrying out a special treatment at an establishment, namely back massage for which a licence was not in force.
Licensing Act 2003
Section 57 2 defendants were cautioned for failing to produce upon the request a premises licence.
Section 136(1) & 57 1 defendant was cautioned for failing to produce upon the request a premises licence and supplying alcohol on or from the premises otherwise than in accordance with the licence.
Byelaw 26 of the Birmingham City Council Hackney Carriage Byelaws 2008 made under section 68 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and section 171 of the Public Health Act 1875
48 defendants were cautioned for failing to display their hackney carriage driver’s badge in a manner as to be plainly and distinctly visible.
Total: 94
Ref: LIC/2472
04/11/2009
7. Implications for Resources
7.1 Costs incurred in investigating and preparing prosecutions, including Officers’ time, the professional fees of expert witnesses etc. are recorded as prosecution costs. Arrangements have been made with the Magistrates Court for any costs awarded to be reimbursed to the City Council. Total costs awarded between April 2008 and March 2009 was £14,184.17. Monies paid in respect of fines are paid to the Treasury.
7.2 From the 1st April 2009 to 30th September 2009 costs have been requested in the sum of £12,320.77 with £7,284 being awarded (59%).
8. Implications for Policy Priorities
8.1 The content of this report relates to one of the key aims of your Committee as identified in the Council Plan 2008-2013, namely to improve standards of licensed people, premises and vehicles in the city.
9. Implications for Equality and Diversity
9.1 The actions identified in this report were taken in accordance with Regulatory Services enforcement policies which ensure that equality issues have been addressed.
DIRECTOR OF REGULATORY SERVICES
Background Papers: Prosecution files and computer records in Legal Proceedings Team.
Ref: LIC/2472
04/11/2009

2 defendants were cautioned for failing to display their private hire drivers badge and failing to display their private hire vehicle licence plate.

I think a caution is a bit of an easy way out for those two lucky drivers We have always been told that unless we have a private mot on our vehicles the removal of our licence plates was illegal as that confirmed the vehicle had passed it's compliance test

Are those traditional Brummy surnames?

FFS.

I said FFS.

I think a caution is a bit of an easy way out for those two lucky drivers We have always been told that unless we have a private mot on our vehicles the removal of our licence plates was illegal as that confirmed the vehicle had passed it's compliance test

I see your point Brummie and clearly there's a widespread problem in Brum that the authorities are turning a blind eye to because they cannot cope.

CC

This problem is totally widespread on PH within Birmingham.

There are about 5,500 PHVs in Brum. A great number of these. possibly the majority, do the job part-time & have other jobs or businesses. They work their PHV mainly at weekends.

After the weekend they temporarily remove the plate from the vehicle & the wife, brother, son, 53rd cousin, or whoever use the vehicle for SDP. That as we all should know is illegal, because a licensed vehicle is always a licensed vehicle AND SHOULD ALWAYS BE DRIVERN ONLY BY A LICENSED DRIVER.

Earlier this year when the licensing committee was discussing all manner of policy changes, some of which were very controversial to one or sometimes both sides of the trade, one of the councillors, not on the licensing committee, but who had been lobbied to speak on behalf of PH drivers regarding a one colour PHV fleet, argued that if the one colour policy was adopted, it would mean that the families of PH drivers would have to buy second cars.

Nobody in the meeting even picked up on the point that this is what should be happening anyway & that non-licensed drivers could not legally drive a licensed vehicle, eventhough it might be temporarily de-plated by the licence holder, or another.

So why didnt the colour policy and age policy get through?

CC