Taxi Driver Online

ven would have simply refused the fare due to the customer not "respecting " the vehicle tbh, after all, i would have other customers to pick up after them, quite simple really, the fact is i don't want to do this job & certainly wont crawl up punters arses disabled/blind with dogs or whatever, i honestly couldn't give a flying fook if i get my badge taken off me, im only in this job by circumstances, its my car/my rules, don't like them? get fooked , my terms or fook off whoever you are, said it before & say it again, why do people automatically thing that assistance dog owners are different from normal dog owners? that aint, another valid point, just tell them to fook off , no need to be terrified , they are just punters

AN Update on BBC news today

A taxi driver who refused to carry a guide dog because he claimed it was against his religion has been fined for breaching equality laws.
Abandi Kassim turned away Charles Bloch, 22, and his dog in Leicester in July 2016.
The driver apologised outside Leicester Magistrates' Court and claimed he was "confused" at the time.
Mr Bloch said he hoped the fine would send a message to others that disability laws must be respected.
He had booked the minicab for himself and his assistance dog, Carlo, and his girlfriend filmed Kassim saying he would not take them with the dog because of his religion.
Mr Bloch, who is registered blind, explained the law but Kassim drove away.
Kassim, 44, of Fountains Avenue, Leicester, pleaded guilty to refusing to convey a guide dog, an offence under the Equality Act 2010, and was fined £476.
Magistrates told him taxi drivers had a duty to know the law.

Kassim said: "I was confused because I was scared of the dog and at the time I did not know the difference between the guide dog and the normal dog.
"It was a mistake, it was a lack of training, I think there should be a course about dogs. I know about them now and would take them now."
Mr Bloch said: "I know a lot of people with assistance dogs worry about this happening so hopefully this shows them the law is on their side.
"It also shows that if they have a problem, there is something they can do about it."
This is the second time Mr Bloch has taken action against a taxi firm, with him bringing a similar case in November.
ADT Taxis, which employed Mr Kassim, said the driver had been dismissed as soon as they became aware of the incident.

Surely there is room for retraining rather than just sacking him after all "once bitten twice shy" a new driver might also just do the same thing although you could argue that the taxi firm had given it's drivers inadequate training to start with

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

Are there 2 different cases being discussed on this thread?

_________________
Grandad,

I believe that is the case

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

No wonder I am confuddled.

_________________
Grandad,

Not really sure it would take much retraining.

You take guide dogs, end of training.

_________________
IDFIMH

Again the rules are in place,Councils should only issue a license if they have proof that the applicant knows the rules,anyone who is licensed now and does not play by the rules should not be in this industry.

when we renew our licenses we have to TICK A BOX that says we have read them and another one that says we have read the bye laws but who really bothers until something happens ?

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

That is the problem within this trade since the diluting of standards,people just sign forms ect. without reading and understanding what they have signed for,the responsible person always will read what they are signing,the irresponsible person which now appears to be the majority signs their life away without reading what they are signing for,ignorance of the LAW or Rules is not a defence when you have signed something claiming you knew the rules appertaining to our trade whether TAXI or Private Hire.

and just for completeness the daily mail finally caught up on this one

A taxi driver who refused to pick up a blind couple because letting their guide dog in his cab was 'against his religion' has been ordered to pay almost £600.
Charles Bloch, 22, and his girlfriend Jessica Graham, 21, booked a ride with Leicester cab firm ADT Taxis in July, last year.
The pair, who were both born with a visual impairment and are registered blind, were with Mr Bloch's guide dog Carlo.
But when driver Abandi Jamal Kassim arrived to pick them up, he would not allow the dog into his cab.
The Muslim driver told Mr Bloch 'For me, it is about my religion.' Mr Bloch told Mr Kassim that refusing to allow the guide dog into the taxi was 'against the law'.

Footage of the incident, which ended with Mr Kassim driving off and leaving the pair stranded at the roadside, was filmed by Miss Graham on her mobile phone.

Leicester City Council, the licensing authority for taxis and private hire cabs in the city, were made aware of the incident after it was shared on social media.

Mr Kassim, 43, appeared before the city's magistrates today and admitted a breach of the Equality Act 2010.

He was fined £340 and ordered to pay £50 compensation and the council's £200 court costs.

John Moss, prosecuting, told Mr Kassim: 'You refused to carry out a booking that had been made by a disabled person and the reason you gave was because they were accompanied by a dog.

'That is an offence under the Equality Act because taxi drivers and private hire drivers cannot refuse to take a fare from somebody on the basis that they have an assistance dog with them.'

Mr Moss said that the law was laid out in the conditions of the taxi driver's permit issued to Mr Kassim by the council. Mr Kassim, representing himself, told the court he had been a licensed private hire taxi driver in Leicester since October 2012.


The footage ends with the taxi driving off (pictured) and Mr Bloch with his dog shouting after the driver: 'If you drive away I'll sue you'
+5
Mr Kassim shouts back out of the window: 'Yeah, I'm ready to talk to the police'
+5
The footage ends with the taxi driving off (pictured) and Mr Bloch with his dog shouting after the driver: 'If you drive away I'll sue you'. Mr Kassim shouts back out of the window: 'Yeah, I'm ready to talk to the police'

He told the court he was 'unaware' of the law at the time of the incident but admitted the offence when interviewed by council officials.

Mr Kassim told magistrates he was 'scared of dogs', having been the victim of an attack in the past which has left him with physical and emotional scars.

He apologised to Mr Boch and Miss Graham through the court and said: 'If I'd known about the law this would not have happened.'

Magistrate Rasheed Cader told him: 'The duty is on you to read the conditions. You have been a taxi driver for some time.

GUIDE DOGS AND THE LAW
Guide dog and assistance dog owners have important rights under the Equality Act 2010 (EA).

The EA provides for people with disabilities to have the same right to services supplied by shops, banks, hotels, libraries, pubs, taxis and restaurants as everyone else.

Under Part 12 of the EA it is also illegal for assistance dog owners to be refused access to a taxi or mincab with their assistance dog.

Medical exemptions are available if drivers have a certificate from their GPs.

'I find it difficult to accept that you didn't know what the permit conditions were when you applied and were accepted as a taxi driver.

'You have a bigger responsibility as a taxi driver that a normal person.' ADT Taxis have apologised to Mr Boch and Miss Graham and said Mr Kassim was no longer one of their drivers.

Mr Boch, a student at Leicester's De Montfort University, who did not attend the hearing, said: 'It started out as such a little thing and it's a shame it had to come to this. 'Really, it's something that should've been very easily avoided.

'Ever since it happened, the incident has been playing on my mind a lot. There's been a lot of worry about the outcome, and what other people think of me. 'But I'm glad it's all now done and dusted and I can put it behind me.

I do hope that, with the help of the Guide Dogs charity, our story has raised awareness of the issue and means it is less likely to happen to another person with a guide dog.'

Leicester City Councillor Sue Waddington, assistant city mayor for jobs and skills, said: 'Taxi drivers are legally required to accept bookings from passengers with assistance dogs, unless the driver has been granted an exemption certificate by the local authority.

'In this case, the driver didn't have any legitimate reason not to accept Mr Bloch and his assistance dog.

'We are pleased with the successful prosecution by our Licensing Enforcement Team and hope that it sends a clear message that this form discrimination will not be tolerated.'

Mr Kassim, whose taxi driver's licence is due to expire in October, will now be required to attend a hearing of the council's Licensing Enforcement-Sub Committee, on a date to be confirmed, where he will find out whether or not the permit will be withdrawn.

'WE ARE DEEPLY ASHAMED': CAB FIRM CONDEMNS DRIVER'S BEHAVIOUR
Leicester cab firm ADT Taxis said it was 'deeply ashamed' after mobile phone footage of their driver refusing to accept a fare from a blind couple went viral.

In July last year a spokesman for the company said: 'We are deeply ashamed of the conduct of this Leicester City Council licensed driver and he clearly broke the law after not accepting a booking we gave to him on religious grounds and has been dispensed with as well as being reported to the council.

'The driver is now free to work for any firm he chooses. Our policy is clear, we do not discriminate, however in the taxi trade drivers are self-employed and free to take work from any source, i.e. Uber/any other private hire firm.

'If we have drivers reported to us for breaking terms of their license, we cut them off from our bookings system and no longer use their service.

'The manager is contacting the customer concerned, and will offer him a full apology and some free journeys.'




Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z4Xh3aAJef
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


footage of incident is on daily mail website

One thing I was not aware of is that you can get medical exemption from carrying guide dogs

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

what i cant understand is that all the office know who wont carry a dog, ok the odd one might slip through, why dont the office when told there is a g/d just think , " ah well old Mohammed wont pick that up, dont send him & send someone who will, is it that hard to do then ??? ( directed at office owners)

Your number 1 on the list every time, they know you like them

But what happens when the majority of the drivers in a company have names like Mohammed,Imran,Ali etc, what I could see happening is the odd driver called. John Smith for example would get the job sent to him even if he's miles away and. As it's an assistance dog he wouldn't be allowed to charge the extra fee £2 in our case which would be grossly unfair.

well i didnt mean to that extent tbh , but local jobs, you owners must know who takes dogs etc