Taxi Driver Online

A MIDDLESBROUGH taxi driver who persistently harassed female passengers has had his licence ban upheld in court.

Shadrack Besong was referred to Middlesbrough Council’s licensing committee over a number of incidents and complaints last year.

It was alleged that on June 25 he had made inappropriate sexual remarks to a lone female passenger.

He had also played music in the vehicle that contained strong sexually explicit lyrics, leaving the passenger shaken and very upset.

On September 25 last year, Besong, of Surrey Street, Middlesbrough, was approached by licensing officers who found him in a dispute with two female passengers.

The 37-year-old had become aggressive and intimidating towards his passengers, and his aggressive attitude continued towards licensing officers and police.

On November 16, after hearing evidence from the passenger and other witnesses, the council’s licensing committee revoked his combined hackney carriage and private hire vehicle driver licences.

Following this decision the driver appealed the council’s decision to magistrates’ court. By law he could continue to drive taxis pending the outcome of the appeal process.

Before the matter was dealt with, the council received another complaint regarding his behaviour to another lone female passenger.

This information was included in the council’s evidence when the matter was considered by Teesside magistrates on March 30. They upheld the Licensing Committee’s decision to revoke Besong’s licence.

The driver subsequently appealed to Teesside Crown Court where the matter was heard last week by Judge Peter Bowers.

He also upheld the council’s decision and ordered Besong to pay £500 costs.

Councillor Julia Rostron, Middlesbrough Council’s Executive member for community protection, said: “Fortunately this is a rare occurrence and the vast majority of our taxi drivers are both considerate and law-abiding.

“But this case should serve as a warning that such conduct will not be tolerated.”


http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teess ... -27538484/

Ship him back.

Let's hope you keep to that, and bin the s*** from this trade.

_________________
IDFIMH

Where to?

_________________
Grandad,

Anywhere...

The only place that I can see that they could ship him to with a name like Shadrack, would be Emmerdale.

_________________
Grandad,

No such thing!!!

Unless the trade allows itself to be hornswoggled!!

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

How would you sugest tackeling a council that insists that there is such a thing and the majority of drivers in the area think it is a good thing?

_________________
Grandad,

The reason councils do it is so that they can apply conditions of licence to the combined licence (which does not exist in law) & thereby apply regulations to HC drivers that would otherwise probably not be passed by the DfT's solicitors (who scrutinise & have to approve all LA HC Bye-laws), were the council to do the job properly. & have HC Bye-laws.

There is a method in the council's madness!!

Any condition that the council attaches to a HC driver licence can be easily challenged in court as it is irrelevant. HC drivers can only be governed with Bye-laws.

Keith Jeffreys, a solicitor specialising in taxi matters, had such a case in 2002, which is reported on the tapin2taxis website as follows;

Royal Courts of Justice Administrative Court 12th July 2002
Jeffrey Wathan-v-Neath & Port Talbot County Borough Council - Before Sir Edwin Jowitt - Case Stated - Held - The Applicant's appeal against the decision of Neath Magistrates be upheld - The Conduct of a Hackney Carriage Driver (if to be regulated) must be regulated by way of Bye Laws and not Conditions of Licence. s68 Town Police Clauses Act 1847 is the relevant provision so far as Bye Laws are concerned. There is no power under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 to attach Conditions to the Licenses of Hackney Carriage Drivers. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Appellant's costs in relation to the Case Stated and the costs below - Solicitor for the Appellant Keith Jeffreys Kearns & Co Swansea - Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Peter Maddox Iscoed Chambers Swansea - Solicitor for the Respondent Neath & Port Talbot legel Dept - Counsel for the Respondent Mr. Paul Thomas Iscoed Chambers Swansea.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

Just because both parties agree does not make it legal.

Parliament makes the laws, not drivers & councils in agreement!!

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

Yes I agree with what you say but the question was how do you sugest tackeling such a council?

_________________
Grandad,

Initially by writing a detailed letter to the council's (or city's) solicitor pointing out the two different statutes that govern HC & PH & advising that there is no such thing as a dual licence in either legislation. Qoute the Neath court case above.

Also, point out that the DfT have model bye-laws as a starting point for LAs & finally ask the question, 'Why would the DfT have these if HCs were not to be governed with bye-laws?'

There seems little point in writing to your licensing officer as he has got it wrong & sheer pride won't let him admit it.

Finally, invite the council's solicitor to speak to the DfT Taxi & Bus section for guidance. There direct line number is; 0207 944 2278. It used to be Pippa Brown but she has gone now, so ask for her replacement.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

But the DfT gave a paper out disagreeing with that judgement, or pointing to the fact that it can be got around.

That said I don't think there are any powers authorising a dual license, even though I do believe in many areas drivers welcome it.

_________________
IDFIMH

Two question as I'm always willing to learn;

1. If the judgment is binding (& I don't know which court gave the judgment), who are the DfT to disagree with a binding court decision? If it's not how the DfT would like it, then fresh legislation is their only route & not to try & influence the courts.

2. Do you have a copy of that paper from the DfT?

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

Somewhere but I can't find it at present.

It's in the Button book, and I'm sure somewhere on the DfT site.

Ask Mr Roland or the DfT to send you a copy. It's dated July 2005.

_________________
IDFIMH