driver hearing

Nidge2 · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2015 9:54 am

grandad wrote:

Nidge2 wrote:

grandad wrote:

I have been down to our council this morning with a prospective driver for a panel hearing. I have previously mentioned this driver from 3 years ago when he had his license revoked after a conviction for benefit fraud. He applied for a new license and was called before the committee this morning. basically the licensing officer had recommended that the application be refused because he had not paid any of the money back. I went with him because he is not very good in these situations. We showed the committee that he had in fact been making payment of £20 per month until last November when payments were increase to £40 per month. This being all that he can afford out of his £4500 per year wages from part time employment, after all he does have to live.
The committee decided that he was not a fit and proper person to be granted a license because he had not paid enough of the money back. one of the committee even told him that he should get a proper job. I thought this was a very condescending remark to make given that the chap is unqualified and weight aproximatly 30 stone so he would struggle to do most jobs.
Do you think that he should appeal to the magistrates court and if so on what grounds?[/

Benefit fraud is theft, would you give a thief a job? I'm with the licensing officer on this one.

Another thing, he's 30 stone and morbidly obese and no doubt suffers from sleep apnoea, IMO he's a danger to the travelling public and other road users.

How long do you think it should be before he can get a badge again? The doctor provided a medical certificate in which he detailed the treatment that this chap had received for sleep apnea and that he was fit to drive a hackney carriage.

Depends if he's been to the sleep clinic for an overnight stay and been assessed on the severity of his apnoea. When he's been to the sleep clinic and only when he's been can the doctor give him the all clear when he's lost some timber.

I wouldn't trust him driving a peddle car.

As for the LO refusing him a badge, he's a thief and should be refused a badge until the LO sees fit to grant him one.

grandad · **Joined:** Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm **Posts:** 20130

Nidge2 wrote:

Depends if he's been to the sleep clinic for an overnight stay and been assessed on the severity of his apnoea. When he's been to the sleep clinic and only when he's been can the doctor give him the all clear when he's lost some timber.

Yes he has been to the clinic and has received treatment and it is all under control and has been for over 12 months.

grandad · **Joined:** Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm **Posts:** 20130

Nidge2 wrote:

As for the LO refusing him a badge, he's a thief and should be refused a badge until the LO sees fit to grant him one.

The Council guidelines state that an applicant should be free of convictions for 3 years before re applying. It is more than 3 years. At his hearing when his badge was revoked in December 2011 the licensing officer did say that the conviction would not be a permanent bar from holding a license. The actuall offence was around 6 years ago. When he was working for one of the other firms in our town and they were paying him £3.50 an hour and they sugested that he claimed the benefits. but that is an old story now.

Nidge2 · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:06 am

grandad wrote:

Nidge2 wrote:

As for the LO refusing him a badge, he's a thief and should be refused a badge until the LO sees fit to grant him one.

The Council guidelines state that an applicant should be free of convictions for 3 years before re applying. It is more than 3 years. At his hearing when his badge was revoked in December 2011 the licensing officer did say that the conviction would not be a permanent bar from holding a license. The actuall offence was around 6 years ago. When he was working for one of the other firms in our town and they were paying him £3.50 an hour and they sugested that he claimed the benefits. but that is an old story now.

They're denying someone a badge round here for a breach of the peace 10 years ago even though its spent and years ago he's going to the mags court to appeal it. I bet they're looking at 5 years clear before they'll even think about giving him a badge.

What's happened to the other firm who were paying him under the NMW?

grandad · **Joined:** Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm **Posts:** 20130

Nidge2 wrote:

What's happened to the other firm who were paying him under the NMW?

The daft thing was that is was this firm who reported him for the benefit fraud when he left them. You know, they advised him to do it and then reported him. Now the real stupid bit was that when they reported him they actually stated that they were paying him £3.50 per hour and they were very surprised when they were prosecuted for not paying the minimum wage. It was not just this chap that was being underpaid but others as well. Now I don't know the exact details but the figure that we heard on the grapevine was £5,000 fine. The sum owed to this chap, although not a great amount was paid to the DWP and/or the Council to reduce how much he owed.

Nidge2 · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:46 am

grandad wrote:

Nidge2 wrote:

What's happened to the other firm who were paying him under the NMW?

The daft thing was that is was this firm who reported him for the benefit fraud when he left them. You know, they advised him to do it and then reported him. Now the real stupid bit was that when they reported him they actually stated that they were paying him £3.50 per hour and they were very surprised when they were prosecuted for not paying the minimum wage. It was not just this chap that was being underpaid but others as well. Now I don't know the exact details but the figure that we heard on the grapevine was £5,000 fine. The sum owed to this chap, although not a great amount was paid to the DWP and/or the Council to reduce how much he owed.

I'd give him a 6 month badge and see how the water lies, no doubt he won't do it again so I can't see where their problem is.

captain cab · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:47 am

grandad wrote:

Nidge2 wrote:

What's happened to the other firm who were paying him under the NMW?

The daft thing was that is was this firm who reported him for the benefit fraud when he left them. You know, they advised him to do it and then reported him. Now the real stupid bit was that when they reported him they actually stated that they were paying him £3.50 per hour and they were very surprised when they were prosecuted for not paying the minimum wage. It was not just this chap that was being underpaid but others as well. Now I don't know the exact details but the figure that we heard on the grapevine was £5,000 fine. The sum owed to this chap, although not a great amount was paid to the DWP and/or the Council to reduce how much he owed.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17890&view=previous

Skull · **Joined:** Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:54 am **Posts:** 10460

This guy is no better or worse than anyone on this forum or the councillors judging him for that matter. Has he been stupid? YES!!! But is he a threat to the public? I doubt that very much. Oh and everyone should remember the MP's expenses scandal and the dirty deeds going on in nearly every Local Authority the length and breadth of the country? It's the way of the world... :-|

Oh and up here in Edinburgh the councillors were even caught fiddling the honesty box for their lunch time meals but does anyone stop them from having gainful employment. This just stinks of hypocrisy and what is worse, you lot put up with it, even to the point of siding with the LA in denying this man his licence. (I'm not talking about you Grandad.)

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/n ... -1-1277210

Hunter S. Thompson sums up this world quite nicely...

Quote:

In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity.

Think on . . . you should be backing this guy to the hilt, as tomorrow it might be you... :shock:

Oh and spare me the, "I'm an honest man" cods-wallop because I've yet to meet a man so principled that he's earned the right to pass judgement on another. [-X

Sussex · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2015 9:10 pm

grandad wrote:

the driver set the repayment rate. His payments have all been made to the Department of Work and Pensions.

Someone must have agreed the amount, be it the court, the council or the DWP in association with others.

My point is that the council are saying he hasn't paid back enough, but he can say I kept up with what has been ordered.

If the council have set the rate, via their benefits investigation team, then the licensing committee can't take issue with it. The same applies if the court has set the re-payment rate.

Skull · **Joined:** Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:54 am **Posts:** 10460

Sussex wrote:

grandad wrote:

the driver set the repayment rate. His payments have all been made to the Department of Work and Pensions.

Someone must have agreed the amount, be it the court, the council or the DWP in association with others.

My point is that the council are saying he hasn't paid back enough, but he can say I kept up with what has been ordered.

If the council have set the rate, via their benefits investigation team, then the licensing committee can't take issue with it. The same applies if the court has set the re-payment rate.

If they are that concerned about his ability to pay, it would have made more sense to grant him his licence. Fu*king ars*holes!! #-o

wannabeeahack · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2015 9:25 pm

Sussex wrote:

If the council have set the rate, via their benefits investigation team, then the licensing committee can't take issue with it. The same applies if the court has set the re-payment rate.

That assumes 1 council dept speaks to, and understands, another council dept

Sussex · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2015 9:43 pm

wannabeeahack wrote:

Sussex wrote:

If the council have set the rate, via their benefits investigation team, then the licensing committee can't take issue with it. The same applies if the court has set the re-payment rate.

That assumes 1 council dept speaks to, and understands, another council dept

But the Mags Court will view the council as a whole, and it would be a big mistake to say my civil servant didn't talk to another one in the same council.

That a side, can't he get a PSV and drive one of Grandads buses?

Skull · **Joined:** Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:54 am **Posts:** 10460

Sussex wrote:

wannabeeahack wrote:

Sussex wrote:

If the council have set the rate, via their benefits investigation team, then the licensing committee can't take issue with it. The same applies if the court has set the re-payment rate.

That assumes 1 council dept speaks to, and understands, another council dept

But the Mags Court will view the council as a whole, and it would be a big mistake to say my civil servant didn't talk to another one in the same council.

That a side, can't he get a PSV and drive one of Grandads buses?

I think you are missing the point. You can't judge a person on their ability to pay a fine. That would mean "fit and proper" being decided on a sliding scale of one's finances. It is patently ludicrous and it has nothing to do with the council or its minions. #-o

Deary fu*ing me.... #-o

gusmac · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:59 pm

Skull wrote:

This guy is no better or worse than anyone on this forum or the councillors judging him for that matter. Has he been stupid? YES!!! But is he a threat to the public? I doubt that very much. Oh and everyone should remember the MP's expenses scandal and the dirty deeds going on in nearly every Local Authority the length and breadth of the country? It's the way of the world... :-|

Oh and up here in Edinburgh the councillors were even caught fiddling the honesty box for their lunch time meals but does anyone stop them from having gainful employment. This just stinks of hypocrisy and what is worse, you lot put up with it, even to the point of siding with the LA in denying this man his licence. (I'm not talking about you Grandad.)

MR T · **Joined:** Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm **Posts:** 8529

Appeal it...and also ask why the councillors think taxiing is not a proper job..

Taxi Driver Online

driver hearing

Who is online