Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Mon May 04, 2026 4:24 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
Indefinite ban for taxi firm which carried school kids and 'put passengers in jeopardy'



The company had a contract with Stockton Council to transport children to and from three schools

A Stockton cab firm has been hit with an indefinite ban after putting commercial gain over passenger safety.

Tracy Noddings, who trades as Noddies, also lost her licence to run public service vehicles following a public inquiry in Leeds last week.

The company had a contract with Stockton Council to transport children to and from three schools in the area.

North East Traffic Commissioner Kevin Rooney took action against Mrs Noddings and her operating licence after hearing that her vehicles were found with serious defects.

Government inspectors reported worn rear brake pads, an emergency exit that could not be opened from the outside and a missing passenger seatbelt cover exposing sharp edges that could have caused an injury.

She was also operating a third vehicle unlawfully, illegally using another firm’s licence disc. Her own licence only allowed her to operate a maximum of two vehicles.

Kevin Rooney said: “Mrs Noddings borrowed a licence disc from another operator to extend her business. As the holder of a restricted PSV licence for nine years, I have no doubt that Mrs Noddings knew this act was unlawful.

“Not only has Mrs Noddings enjoyed a commercial advantage, it is clear she has also put the safety of her passengers and other road users in jeopardy.”

In February, examiners from the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) stopped a vehicle during a school check and the driver said he was working for Tracy Noddings.

The vehicle displayed a licence disc in the name of another driver who subsequently confirmed he was not operating the vehicle. The disc was therefore being used illegally by Tracy Noddings, said the Traffic Commissioner.

Tracy Noddings did not attend the public inquiry on September 14 .

But she had previously submitted evidence stating she was unaware she was committing any offences.

She largely blamed maintenance contractors for the maintenance failures.

The orders come into effect on October 14 and mean that she will not be able to carry passengers commercially.

A spokesman for Stockton Council said: “We have suspended the company with immediate effect and arranged alternative provision for the routes affected.”

source: http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teess ... d-11919668

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:56 pm
Posts: 2553
Not any mention of the Council revoking their Taxi/private hire operators or vehicle licenses due to the fact they automatically became "Not fit and proper person" on the revocation of Licenses by the Traffic Commissioner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 20130
heathcote wrote:
Not any mention of the Council revoking their Taxi/private hire operators or vehicle licenses due to the fact they automatically became "Not fit and proper person" on the revocation of Licenses by the Traffic Commissioner.

There is no mention in the article of them being a taxi operator. Only in the Captains heading. :wink:

_________________
Grandad,


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
grandad wrote:
heathcote wrote:
Not any mention of the Council revoking their Taxi/private hire operators or vehicle licenses due to the fact they automatically became "Not fit and proper person" on the revocation of Licenses by the Traffic Commissioner.

There is no mention in the article of them being a taxi operator. Only in the Captains heading. :wink:


which was unaltered (for a change) :wink:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 20130
captain cab wrote:
grandad wrote:
heathcote wrote:
Not any mention of the Council revoking their Taxi/private hire operators or vehicle licenses due to the fact they automatically became "Not fit and proper person" on the revocation of Licenses by the Traffic Commissioner.

There is no mention in the article of them being a taxi operator. Only in the Captains heading. :wink:


which was unaltered (for a change) :wink:

Bad journo then. :mrgreen:

_________________
Grandad,


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
grandad wrote:
Bad journo then. :mrgreen:


not entirely ;)


http://www.noddiescars.co.uk/

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8ZYML5mM4E

oh bugger

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2016 9:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:58 pm
Posts: 3568
Location: Plymouth
grandad wrote:
There is no mention in the article of them being a taxi operator. Only in the Captains heading. :wink:

Except in the second line perhaps.......

"A Stockton cab firm has been hit with an indefinite ban after putting commercial gain over passenger safety."


:roll: :roll: :roll:

_________________
Chris The Fish

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2016 11:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:56 pm
Posts: 2553
They do or did have a website with an address and phone numbers advertising a taxi/private hire service.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 5:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 20130
Chris the Fish wrote:
grandad wrote:
There is no mention in the article of them being a taxi operator. Only in the Captains heading. :wink:

Except in the second line perhaps.......

"A Stockton cab firm has been hit with an indefinite ban after putting commercial gain over passenger safety."


:roll: :roll: :roll:

Every reference to the vehicles being used were being run as PCVs. The prosecution was brought by the traffic commissioner. The Captain has already pointed out that they also run some sort of cab company but they were not in court for this. The question posed by Heathcote was "Not any mention of the Council revoking their Taxi/private hire operators or vehicle licenses due to the fact they automatically became "Not fit and proper person" on the revocation of Licenses by the Traffic Commissioner." At the time of their court appearance the Licensing authority for taxis/ph would not have had time to even meet to discuss their "fit and proper" status because until the court case had been concluded they had not been convicted.

_________________
Grandad,


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 8:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:58 pm
Posts: 3568
Location: Plymouth
grandad wrote:
Every reference to the vehicles being used were being run as PCVs. The prosecution was brought by the traffic commissioner. The Captain has already pointed out that they also run some sort of cab company but they were not in court for this. The question posed by Heathcote was "Not any mention of the Council revoking their Taxi/private hire operators or vehicle licenses due to the fact they automatically became "Not fit and proper person" on the revocation of Licenses by the Traffic Commissioner." At the time of their court appearance the Licensing authority for taxis/ph would not have had time to even meet to discuss their "fit and proper" status because until the court case had been concluded they had not been convicted.


I don't disagree with what you put here. I outlined the problem with your previous post.

I wonder if their standing in regard to "Fit and Proper" with the "Cab" part of the business will be reviewed.

_________________
Chris The Fish

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 8:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 20130
Chris the Fish wrote:

I wonder if their standing in regard to "Fit and Proper" with the "Cab" part of the business will be reviewed.

One would like to think so.

_________________
Grandad,


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:47 pm
Posts: 20863
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
grandad wrote:
heathcote wrote:
Not any mention of the Council revoking their Taxi/private hire operators or vehicle licenses due to the fact they automatically became "Not fit and proper person" on the revocation of Licenses by the Traffic Commissioner.

There is no mention in the article of them being a taxi operator. Only in the Captains heading. :wink:



A Stockton cab firm has been hit with an indefinite ban after putting commercial gain over passenger safety.

The thing is though that it sounds as if the taxi and the bus side were separate businesses so you cannot hold the other responsible for the misdemeanors of the other even if some personnel are common to both

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
edders23 wrote:
so you cannot hold the other responsible for the misdemeanors of the other even if some personnel are common to both


You can :wink:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 20130
captain cab wrote:
edders23 wrote:
so you cannot hold the other responsible for the misdemeanors of the other even if some personnel are common to both


You can :wink:

It is not the business that is held responsible, it is the people. So of course they can be penalised.

_________________
Grandad,


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 793 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