Taxi Driver Online

Correct.

If you want a dual badge there is nothing to say that can't have one though. But if you do, you become liable under both Byelaws and Conditions so be careful if you opt for it.

What gives me the problem is those Authorities that (illegally IMO) offer no alternative to the dual badge.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

We don't get the option here. No one will challeng it because they all see it as a cheaper option than paying for 2 badges even though the vast majority have never driven a private hire vehicle EVER.

_________________
Grandad,

Mr English in Wales!

You have avoided the question asked many times in this thread!

DID THE DRIVER PLEAD GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY IN COURT TO THE CHARGES LAID AGAINST HIM?

Your refusal to answer such a simple question would clearly lead all on this Forum to believe that YOU have something to hide and the presumption has to be that the driver pleaded guilty, probably on his solicitor's advice.

There are many on this Forum that could possibly help you, but not without this simple information which you appear to be unwilling to disclose.

_________________
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.

Possibly not in this case as the council have stated;

'THIS DECISION WAS MADE IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC SAFETY.'

_________________
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 noted that bit.......but the power was granted in respect of drivers accused of rape and suchlike, ejecting a passenger on a dual carriageway isnt in my opinion public safety grounds enough.

They could have given him 21 days to appeal and continue to drive after the committee hearing instead they appear to have used section 52 after the committee meeting.........I wonder if he was immediately suspended straight after the incident?

It seems to me the use of the immediate suspension here was to prevent the driver from driving whilst pending appeal.

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

But doesn't Section 52 state in the wording, 'on grounds of public safety'?

_________________
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 it does, so a person shouldnt speed - on the grounds of public safety - my point stands;

It seems to me the use of the immediate suspension here was to prevent the driver from driving whilst pending appeal.

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

It all seems a bit strange to me.

_________________
Grandad,

Sorry I didnt reply THE DRIVER PLEADED not guilty

id have blamed abuse and threat of physical danger

end of

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

Was the punter called to give evidence?

_________________
IDFIMH

A very interesting discussion. I now see that the driver pleaded Not Guilty. Therefore he must have been found guilty after trial by the District Judge / Lay Bench. Either way, they would have had to announce the reasoning for their decision after their deliberations so he will be aware as to why the found him Guilty. Bear in mind that the criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) is a high one so they must have been sure.The passenger would have attended to give evidence for the prosecution. In limited circumstances, a witnesses statement can be read out after such an application is made to the Court. This scenario would not fit such an application.

Clearly, having heard the evidence the Court preferred the version given by the prosecution witness and not the Driver, hence the conviction. The Driver of course had the option to appeal the conviction if the Magistrates made an error in Law. I take it this did not happen. If found guilty, the Court then proceeds to sentence, hence his fine.

The Licensing Sub Committee have a very different agenda to the Court and once they have learned that a Driver has a conviction, they too are empowered to call the Driver to the Committee and make a decision based on whether he remains 'Fit and Proper' and if a sanction is warranted. In this instance they clearly felt it was. I can understand why some drivers feel that they are being punished twice.

If all of the information has been posted above (and I believe that we may not have all of the story) it may be that he was not forcefully represented (again, one can only speculate)

A large majority of our clients find us AFTER they have been convicted / plead guilty at the Magistrates Court having been represented by a Criminal Lawyer (some of whom do not understand the sanctions that can then be imposed by a Licensing Sub Committee) In this case it was a 2 month ban. Many cases are referred to us when a licence is revoked.

I hope this goes some way to explaining the procedure (albeit very briefly)

Kuldip
http://www.taxilawyer.co.uk
kuldip@obiterlegal.com
0121 5722746
07 575 575 494

_________________
Kuldip S Lall
kuldip@obiterlegal.com
www.taxilawyer.co.uk
www.obiterlegal.com
0121 5722746
07 575 575 494

The council also have to state WHY it is in the interest of public safety.

If the clearway byelaw is interpreted so narrowly that the driver may not stop even if the passenger has opened the door then by the same token if a mother and child were to run out in front of the driver he would be required to run them over!

There is obviously more to this story than the OP is telling us. I have set down passengers who are unwilling to pay or just generally obnoxious but always in a safe place. I would never forcibly return them to the starting point as this would be abduction

_________________
Steve.

Steven: - "I would never forcibly return them to the starting point as this would be abduction".

I don't think that that is correct, although I am unable to quote any Legal Precedence to back up this feeling.

I think that dropping a Passenger, somewhere along the way, is the closer to abduction. Certainly, you should have a statement of what your action would be, should there be a problem, in the T&Cs, which must be easily visible to any passenger in your Cab

_________________
Don't dream it ~ Be it.