Taxi Driver Online

And odd tale indeed. And if it's as portrayed in the article then driver truly is a doughnut.

But obviously a bit of 'he said, she said' going on, and even the council and the operator at odds over the procedures

Taxi driver 'performed doughnuts' to provoke parking warden with boy, 8, locked in car

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/tees ... e-15821013

The schoolboy was 'scraping the windows to get out' after the altercation says his furious mum

A mum claims a taxi driver did 'doughnuts' to provoke a parking warden with her young son locked inside.

Claire Rowbottom, 35, was in the taxi on the way to an appointment with eight-year-old son George, when she asked the Boro Taxis driver to stop at a Thornaby town centre shop.

George offered to stay in the cab while she dashed in - and after being initially unsure she agreed as the driver said 'it's fine', she says.

But while she went inside the store, she says there was an altercation between the driver and a parking warden over the cabbie parking in a service yard behind the shops.

Claire, from Thornaby, says she saw the driver doing "doughnuts" and spinning the vehicle around.

She says her son was "literally scraping the windows" to get out.

"It was horrible," she said. "I just froze, and George flung himself at me screaming 'there's been a fight' - there hadn't, but he's eight and to him there had.

"I found out that in the meantime, the driver had been asked to move and the driver got out."

Claire claimed the driver swore at her son during the altercation with the warden.

She added: "He had been spinning the car, doing doughnuts to provoke the warden. George was completely traumatised.

"He said 'I was going to try to get to you but I couldn't get out of the car'."

Stockton Council revoked the driver's licence following the incident in December.

Claire also criticised Boro Taxis' handling of her complaint.

But the firm defended its response, saying a team member dealt with the complaint "professionally and politely".

A Boro Taxis spokesman said the company had not been made aware the driver's licence had been revoked and would be making a formal complaint to the council regarding the matter.

He said: “A senior, experienced and fully-trained member of the team dealt with the customer professionally and politely concerning an issue that does not reflect the information subsequently given to the press.

"The licensing authority has not advised us of any concerns raised by the customer regarding the handling of the complaint by ourselves.

"The company was not made aware that a Hackney carriage driver’s licence had been revoked until contact from the Gazette.

"We are concerned that the licensing authority had not notified us of the revocation and will be making a formal complaint to the council about that.”

Claire gave evidence at the Stockton Council hearing and says she felt like she 'had been put on trial'.

A spokesman for Stockton Council said: “It is the responsibility of taxi firms to ensure their drivers are appropriately licensed and this is made very clear in the conditions of their operator’s licence.”

So what's the normal procedure here on a day-to-day basis? How does an operator get to know if a driver's licence has been revoked the day before, say?

And does the operator have any jurisdiction or responsibility in this regard in this specific case, as the piece states that it involved a Hackney Carriage driver?

After all, if the despatch firm was 100% HCs then it wouldn't need any kind of licence at all.

If Councils obeyed the LAW on TAXI(hackney carriage registers) and kept them as stated with the information recorded correctly it would be in the public domain and accessible to all on request.
This is a SERIOUS breach of the LAW by the people who are supposed to enforce and it is endemic in all Councils.

Not sure what your point is - the HC register could have been bang up to date for all we know, and I can't really see how it's relevant to the dispute between the council and the despatch firm.

The council should inform the operator thus allowing them to remove the driver from their data system. In fact I think the council has a duty to inform.

_________________
IDFIMH

Does it matter if the vehicle here is an HC?

If it was an HC-only fleet then as per Gladen there would be no need for regulation if the despatch office was 100% HCs and thus no operator's licence, so the point in dispute between Boro Cars and the council wouldn't be happening?

Of course, it's presumably a mixed fleet we're dealing with here, so not quite the same as Gladen, which I assume was HC-only, but not entirely clear from skim-reading the judgement.

But, as I said a few weeks ago with regard to a council trying to say that HCs should display any despatch office number on the car, can a council actually impose that if they don't have any jurisdiction over HC despatch operations as per Gladen?

Also, if it's a mixed fleet and thus there is a PH operator's licence in force, can a council impose the same conditions on HCs as on PHVs, eg phone number displayed on vehicles, or the process that's in dispute in this article?

Seems to me that a mixed-fleet op is wearing two hats at the same time - a PHV operator's hat, and an unregulated HC despatch hat.

Has this point (or similar) been subject to any decided cases, ie how a PH operator's licence holder should interact with HCs on its fleet as compared to PHVs?

Not sure it matters.

If a driver is on a circuit then that circuit should not only be told, but should be instructed to remove the driver from their data systems.

_________________
IDFIMH

I get that, but the issue isn't merely a licensing matter, it's a safeguarding matter.

Should work be given to a driver that has had his license revoked, or suspended, and that driver commits another offence, then the council are liable if they haven't told the operator to remove the driver.

I'm also not sure there are that many 100% HC fleet operators that don't have a PH operator's license.

_________________
IDFIMH

The council can have whatever reasonable rules they want, but they can't enforce operator's rules.

_________________
IDFIMH

The interaction is quite simple, the operator has it's rules which drivers must adhere too, and the council has it's rules which drivers must adhere too.

Clearly licensing rules/bylaws trump the operator's rules, but no reason why both set of rules can't be met.

_________________
IDFIMH

No doubt it would all depend on the circumstances, but I find it hard to believe that a PH operator's responsibilities and obligations towards HC driver and vehicles are *precisely* the same as those relating to PH drivers and vehicles.

If Parliament intended them to be identical then that would be provided for in the legislation, but it clearly isn't.

Strikes me as being a bit of a grey area, ie like the rules applying to a licensed vehicle when it's being used for SDP

See I'm not sure they should differ.

Clearly from a licensing point hackneys and PHVs are not the same, and a hackney doesn't need a licensed operator to receive prebooked work, however the issue from an operator's point of view isn't licensing, but liability.

For an operator to cover themselves that have got to show they have done their due diligence by ensuring the vehicle and driver are safe. That includes ensuring the driver and vehicle are licensed, and the vehicle is insured.

The above applies equally to hackneys and PHVs.

And for the council to cover it's liability, it needs to inform the operator they understand the vehicle/driver works on that the license is revoked/suspended. Clearly if the hackney doesn't work on a circuit, or doesn't tell the council then that's slightly different.

But if a hackney has numbers of a PH operator on his vehicle, and the driver/vehicle license is suspended/revoked, then the council IMO has a legal duty to inform the operator.

_________________
IDFIMH

So if it was an HC-only circuit - and therefore no licence required - would your answer be different?

No, because councils have a duty to protect the public.

Not informing a supplier of work to a Hackney that that vehicle/driver is no longer licensed would be a neglect of that duty if they knew that driver/vehicle took work off that operator.

_________________
IDFIMH

And that is the reason why a Council must fulfil the obligations of Sections 41 and 42, 1847 TPCA to the letter so that anyone can check to see if a vehicle/driver is above board.