Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sat Oct 19, 2019 3:02 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 36925
Location: Wayneistan
Illegal minicab firm finally brought to justice after two year court battle



A minicab firm has finally been banned from Aylesbury’s roads and ordered to pay a hefty £25,000 following a two-year battle to get them off the streets.

Call a Cab – also known as Easy Cabs – unlawfully operated under a Rutland County Council private hire licence which Aylesbury Vale District Council claimed was illegal.

It said cabs must be licensed by them to ensure they were subject to the same safety checks and regulations as other taxi firms in the Vale.

After several twists and turns during a two year battle in the courts, a judge has finally convicted the firm and its boss Ahtiq Raja of operating without a licence.

Chairman of the licensing committee councillor Judy Brandis said: “This has been a protracted and costly prosecution but sends the strongest possible message that Aylesbury Vale District Council will challenge unlawful practices which undermine public safety, essential regulatory standards and fair competition. This was an important case and we are delighted with the outcome.”

In 2012, the district council prosecuted the firm for acting as a private hire operator without a licence from AVDC together.

However, the case collapsed on a legal loophole after Call a Cab argued that the council had not properly adopted the relevant provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1977.

The council had passed a resolution to adopt the provisions on March 8 1989 and was able to provide evidence of the newspaper advertisements, but it could not prove that notices had been sent to parish councils and meetings because its files had been destroyed.

For this reason, the court dismissed the council’s case.

However, in November last year the High Court allowed the council’s appeal and sent the case back to the Magistrates’ Court for reconsideration.

This week Call a Cab was convicted of five offences of operating a private hire vehicle without a licence and its sole director at the time, Mr Raja, for aiding and abetting the commission of the offences.

District Judge Tim Pattinson decided that the additional evidence obtained by AVDC left him in no doubt that the appropriate notifications were made and that the resolution passed by the council in 1989 was valid.

He had no hesitation in rejecting the defence that the company did not require a licence because it was acting as an intermediary, and imposed a fine of £2,500 each on the firm and Mr Raja.

Both the company and Mr Raja also have to pay a victim surcharge of £50 and prosecution costs of £20,000 in total.

Judge Pattinson also noted that the firm had put the council to a great deal of expense and taken up valuable court time.

source: http://www.bucksherald.co.uk/news/more- ... -1-6152205

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 11:17 pm
Posts: 2349
"He had no hesitation in rejecting the defence that the company did not require a licence because it was acting as an intermediary, and imposed a fine of £2,500 each on the firm and Mr Raja.

Maybe someone should send a copy of this to Uber, Blablacar and whoever else thinks they don't need a licence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 36925
Location: Wayneistan
roythebus wrote:
"He had no hesitation in rejecting the defence that the company did not require a licence because it was acting as an intermediary, and imposed a fine of £2,500 each on the firm and Mr Raja.

Maybe someone should send a copy of this to Uber, Blablacar and whoever else thinks they don't need a licence.



UBER has a license in Manchester & London

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:44 pm
Posts: 10477
Location: Scotland
Do you think Rutland might now get there act together and keep control of all vehicles they licence, or would that require a court order


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 4:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 17838
skippy41 wrote:
Do you think Rutland might now get there act together and keep control of all vehicles they licence, or would that require a court order
They just wipe their hands of anything. We now have 2 businesses in our borough working off of Rutland plates and neither of them have a proper office address in Rutland. I challenged Rutland on one of them not having an office phone number, or indeed any phone number for the "office" in Rutland and they told me that they don't need a number because they can take bookings by POST!!!!!

_________________
Grandad,
old fart with no heart


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2014 10:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 36925
Location: Wayneistan
A little more about this from licensing resourse - please note the Judges comments in bold

Aylesbury Vale DC v Call a Cab Ltd & Ahtiq Raja

Readers will recall the High Court case of Aylesbury Vale DC v Call a Cab last year.

Briefly, in 2012 Aylesbury Vale DC prosecuted Call a Cab for acting as a private hire operator without a licence from the district council together with Mr Raja, for aiding and abetting the commission of the offences.

During the hearing however, the council did not convince the district judge that it had adopted the proper private hire controls.

Call a Cab Ltd argued that the council had not properly adopted the relevant provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

The council had passed a resolution to adopt the provisions on March 8 1989 and was able to provide evidence of the newspaper advertisements but it could not prove that notices had been sent to parish councils and meetings because its files had been destroyed. For this reason, the court dismissed the council’s case.

Aylesbury Vale appealed the District Judge’s dismissal of the case and in November 2013 the High Court allowed the council’s appeal and sent the case back to the Magistrates’ Court for reconsideration.

Following the appeal, Aylesbury Vale has now successfully prosecuted Call a Cab Ltd (now known as Easy Cabs) and Mr Ahtiq Raja.

A hearing was held at Oxford Magistrates' Court to reconsider the case. Call a Cab Ltd was convicted of five offences of operating a private hire vehicle without a licence and its sole director at the time, Mr Raja, for aiding and abetting the commission of the offences.

Having considered the matter afresh, District Judge Tim Pattinson decided that the additional evidence obtained by AVDC left him in no doubt that the appropriate notifications were made and that the resolution passed by the council in 1989 was valid.

The judge said he had no hesitation in rejecting the defence that the company did not require a licence because it was acting as an intermediary and imposed a total fine of £2,500 on each defendant. Both the company and Mr Raja also have to pay a victim surcharge of £50 and prosecution costs of £20,000 in total.

Judge Pattinson also said that he was in no doubt that Mr Raja misled the court last year about the outcome of his own enquiries and that he had lied to the court about the reliability and diligence of his enquiries. He stated this was a very serious matter and noted that he had put the council to a great deal of expense and taken up valuable court time.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2014 12:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 17838
captain cab wrote:

Judge Pattinson also said that he was in no doubt that Mr Raja misled the court last year about the outcome of his own enquiries and that he had lied to the court about the reliability and diligence of his enquiries. He stated this was a very serious matter and noted that he had put the council to a great deal of expense and taken up valuable court time.

At least my time at the library looking through the back issues of our paper are recorded. :wink:

_________________
Grandad,
old fart with no heart


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2014 2:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:45 am
Posts: 9831
Location: Clandestine, soon to be Russia.
skippy41 wrote:
Do you think Rutland might now get there act together and keep control of all vehicles they licence, or would that require a court order


Along with Bolsover?? Nah I doubt it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2014 2:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 36925
Location: Wayneistan
grandad wrote:
At least my time at the library looking through the back issues of our paper are recorded. :wink:


I'd like to know more on how this c*nt misguided the court though.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2014 7:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 43766
Location: 1066 Country
grandad wrote:
captain cab wrote:

Judge Pattinson also said that he was in no doubt that Mr Raja misled the court last year about the outcome of his own enquiries and that he had lied to the court about the reliability and diligence of his enquiries. He stated this was a very serious matter and noted that he had put the council to a great deal of expense and taken up valuable court time.

At least my time at the library looking through the back issues of our paper are recorded. :wink:

And in all fairness your comments are easily disproved by the council undertaking their own search.

If you said you searched and found nothing, but the council also searched and found something, that wouldn't mean you were lying.

Just that you need a new pair so specs. :wink:

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2014 9:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 17838
Sussex wrote:
grandad wrote:
captain cab wrote:

Judge Pattinson also said that he was in no doubt that Mr Raja misled the court last year about the outcome of his own enquiries and that he had lied to the court about the reliability and diligence of his enquiries. He stated this was a very serious matter and noted that he had put the council to a great deal of expense and taken up valuable court time.

At least my time at the library looking through the back issues of our paper are recorded. :wink:

And in all fairness your comments are easily disproved by the council undertaking their own search.

If you said you searched and found nothing, but the council also searched and found something, that wouldn't mean you were lying.

Just that you need a new pair so specs. :wink:

I hope they do send someone to the library to check. I have my own theory about what will happen next.

_________________
Grandad,
old fart with no heart


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group