Taxi Driver Online

Go straight to the ombudsman with the documents from the Council.

I do not think an operators license can be transfered there appears something fishy is going on in this licensing department if that happened.

You could take all the evidence you have to the Chair of the Council scrutiny committee who would be duty bound to investigate your complaint.

If you transfer your license or anything before you are prosecutors, then there is nothing anyone can do, and that is what they do

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

Both are at fault.

The owner for being a crook, and the council for maladministration.

_________________
IDFIMH

You have had your reply from the council.

I wouldn't persevere with them, just go straight to the LGO.

_________________
IDFIMH

Although I think you have to exhaust the council's internal appeals procedure before you go to the ombudsman, or they might not look at it.

But a clear case of administrative/compliance failure, the only question being to what extent the council is liable for any losses.

But it's like the council's vehicle inspection failed to check the brakes, or they failed to check the DBS stuff on an application, and then they blame any consequences wholly on the licence holder

A quick look on the LGO's website throws up this one, which is maybe broadly similar. And I'm sure there will be a lot more relevant cases:

https://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/enviro ... 19-001-330

If you look at it, realistically, what can the council do now prosecute the other person, owner driver, and do what take away his licenses he’s already got rid of them, they are probably not going to take him through the courts for a criminal offence because the police have already let you off, can the council be blamed for you incurring costs? That is For a court to decide, Me I would put them in the papers and on the radio and shamed them for being incompetence, and for failing their responsibilities. Remember the councils adopt These acts such as the 1976, they don’t have too, they take on the responsibility of Overseeing that it is implemented correctly

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

For what it's worth, added the word 'wholly' to what I said the other day. Without the word wholly, it makes it sound like I think the council is solely responsible for compliance checks and the like but, of course, in the final analysis a car with defective brakes or a licence application which is dishonest is ultimately the responsibility of the licence holder or applicant.

But, of course, a licensing authority must accept some responsibility for failure to undertake basic compliance checks, or any negligence in assessing them etc

But Mr Sudbury was effectively the innocent victim, and it would have been an injustice if he'd been prosecuted purely because of the letter of the law.

On the other hand, the applicant obviously perpetrated a deliberate fraud, which in turn has caused substantial harm.

And I'm sure there are cases on here of the likes of licence applicants being prosecuted for fraudulent applications, which I'd say are certainly no more serious than what's gone on here, and in fact this one seems a lot more serious.

But the cynic in me thinks there's unlikely to be a prosecution because it would highlight the council's shortcomings in dealing with the application. It's maybe more about the 'optics' than law enforcement

Quote:
I wouldn't persevere with them, just go straight to the LGO.

Although I think you have to exhaust the council's internal appeals procedure before you go to the ombudsman, or they might not look at it.

But a clear case of administrative/compliance failure, the only question being to what extent the council is liable for any losses.

But it's like the council's vehicle inspection failed to check the brakes, or they failed to check the DBS stuff on an application, and then they blame any consequences wholly on the licence holder

A quick look on the LGO's website throws up this one, which is maybe broadly similar. And I'm sure there will be a lot more relevant cases:

Latest developments

Unfortunately I forgot a part of the renewal application process and overlooked its relevance.

As part of our process, there is the statement that insurance must clearly state it is for hire and reward
More to the point, we have an Insurance indemnification form, which has to be filled in by the insurer and carry's the statement "fare paying passengers".
I totally forgot about this and as is the way with this particular incidence, I have never seen this document.
All is not lost though, I have requested a copy under FOI

I cannot imagine a legit insurer signing off on this, suggesting the one produced has been fraudulently created. Might even prompt the police to reconsider my ID theft and what it was used for.

They do seem to be dragging their heels on producing this document

I suspect they have never been asked for it, and don't know where it can be found.

_________________
IDFIMH

Hi Folks

A quick update on this ongoing saga.

So the owner of SCC was back in the country recently, recruiting new drivers and buying new vehicles so he can get some new school contracts (very lucrative in these parts). I confronted him and called the police. He did a runner and the police failed to show, go figure!

I have just had the story published on PHTM facebook page, so outside of this platform it is the first "publication"

I have referred the issue with Babergh Licensing to the Gov Ombudsmen, as Babergh refuse to accept any responsibility for anything!

I have issued an Invoice on the company SCC for legal and medical fees incurred. I expect it to be ignored, so the process of enforcement and collection will begin.

Watch this space for future developments

Have you made the folks in charge of the tendering process aware of this fella's history?

_________________
IDFIMH

Ruling from the Ombudsmen

My assessment
5. There is no question Mr X has suffered as a result of the incident which forms the
basis of this complaint but we could not hold the Council responsible for the
injustice he claims.
6. Although the Council licensed the vehicle the series of events in this case are
simply too far removed from the licensing process to infer any responsibility for
what happened.

Final decision 2
7. It was the responsibility of those applying for the licence and utilising it to ensure
there was proper insurance in place and we could not achieve the outcome Mr X
wants by investigating further.
8. If Mr X wishes to claim compensation from the Council he may wish to seek legal
advice about doing so at court.
Final decision
9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot holdthe Council
responsible for the injustice Mr X claims.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman



So much for having any faith in this process !!

Well at least it didn't cost you £10,000 to get that answer.

_________________
IDFIMH

It's still something of a cop out by the regulator though.

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

Join the campaign to get April fools jokes banned for 364 days a year !