Taxi Driver Online

Taxi driver loses licence for flouting touting rules

A taxi driver has lost his licence for two weeks and been ordered to pay £1,500 in costs after being accused of flouting the terms of his licence. The driver, who had invalidated his insurance after being in breach of terms of his licence, appealed against Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s decision to suspend his taxi driving licence for two weeks following reports of touting in Epsom.

He appealed against the decision to magistrates at Redhill but they dismissed his application and ordered him to pay £1,500 in costs. It was the first time a taxi driver had taken a council in Surrey to appeal after being accused of touting for trade.

Franco Colasuono, from Wiltshire, had his taxi driver licence suspended by the council’s licensing sub-committee in January after officers received a number of allegations that Mr Colasuono had been touting for customers from his cab opposite Epsom railway station.

His licence allowed him to be hailed in the street or wait at the clocktower taxi rank. But he was not allowed to work from the station’s taxi rank which was for permit holders only or be stationary in his taxi and solicit custom himself.

Steve Davies, director of operations at Epsom and Ewell Borough Council, said: “We are very pleased that the magistrates believed that the decision to suspend Mr Colasuono’s taxi driver licence was the right one.

"He was not only breaking the law by touting for custom at the station, but was also putting passengers at risk as he was not insured to have them in his car if he solicited their custom rather than being hailed in the street.

“The council regularly monitors the operations of taxi and private hire drivers throughout the borough and will take action against those who choose to ignore the rules.”

_________________
IDFIMH

Now none of this may be true, but if we take all the above as being true, then why didn't the council/police prosecute him for touting?

Rather than suspending his license for touting.

Be interesting to see if this goes to a higher court.

_________________
IDFIMH

In my limited experience (especially what happens locally) the Licensing and Enforcement committees like to exercise their “power” over us mortals, and would rather deal with things “internally”, and not involve the police – this can expose them in the public eye too much.

I think the reasoning is often egotistical, and also, because the matters are dealt with “behind closed doors”, the numbers of persons brought before them, and the possible highlighting of the lack of enforcement in most areas (etc) can be conveniently swept under the carpet, as all matters are dealt with “in private”.

So, if an individual tries to see into the workings of the committees they are told that they cannot attend them (closed to the public) and are not privy to any information, because of the limitations of the FOI acts, and the need to protect individual identities.

QED then - no public exposure - therefore not properly accountable!
______________________________________________________________