Taxi Driver Online

Seems straightforward enough at first, but the whys and the whereabouts not clear at all


Decision to revoke taxi driver of license after he was caught plying for hire was wrong, says judge

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/not ... se-3337027

The council revoked his licence, and will now discuss the judge's ruling

A former cabbie claims to have been harshly treated after losing his job for a year in a taxi crackdown.

Father-of-four Gholan Qadari spoke after partly winning an appeal against a council which removed his hackney carriage licence.

The case went to court where Deputy District Judge Steven Jonas examined the decision of the environment committee of Gedling Borough Council. Members had agreed to revoke Mr Qadari's licence.

But the judge said: "In particular circumstances, a period of suspension is more proportionate. The original decision was wrong.

"An appropriate decision is one year suspension. The appeal is allowed to that extent."

Nottingham Magistrates' Court heard Mr Qadari had spent many years operating under a Nottingham City Council licence. In March last year, he applied to Gedling for a licence but ran into trouble before it was issued that August.

Should the council agree with the court's ruling, Mr Qadari will be able to continue working from next August.

His solicitor Antony Schiller said: "He was caught by an undercover operation.

"He took some unbooked passengers and was told the facts would be reported in due course and he would hear.

"He didn't hear anything and was issued with his licence by Gedling Borough Council."

He said there had been no attempt to conceal the incident, adding: "There is no obligation to declare something which may happen in the future."

Later Mr Qadari was taken to court and fined for plying for hire illegally as well as having no insurance. When he broke the terms of his licence, his insurance cover automatically ended, creating the second offence.

Leanne Splaine, for the council, told the judge: "The policy is very severe when driving without insurance.

"A taxi driver who is carrying passengers should be a fit and proper person.

"He picked up passengers knowing full well he should not have. The overriding policy is to protect people who are being driven. Due to his conviction, he was not fit and proper," added Miss Splaine.

After the case, Mr Qadari said he had been unable to work since August and had to remortgage his home in Vincent Gardens, Hyson Green.

"I have driven for many years without an accident or a complaint and this one thing happens. I have been badly treated," he said.

"I paid the council £150 for the licence application and they will not repay it and will not give me a licence. If I took a fare and then my tyre is flat, I would refund the money."

The court decision is likely to be discussed by the council.

So he was presumably a PHD in Nottingham, where he was caught plying for hire?

And this happened while his application for a HCD's badge in Gedling was being processed?

And Gedling later revoked his new badge because of it?

Does the council have a choice? What happens if they disagree with the judge?

the court is senior to the council so they have to accept it

if he is suspended for one year that's a long wait so I would think he'll go and do something else

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

Not sure if it's quite as straightforward as that legally.

Which is presumably what's implied by the report's phrase "should the council agree with the court's ruling". (Although maybe that's alluding to the possibility of the council appealing the court's decision, as opposed to there being some sort of licensing committee rehearing, as seems to be happening in Glasgow under the Scottish system.)

Unfortunately the report doesn't seem to cover the legal nuances, but then again it's a brief newspaper report, not the transcript of a court judgement

Clearly he has remitted the case back to the council to decide on, so they can still refuse if the applicant fails to meet their current licensing criteria.

Doubt the council will go against the court, but maybe some time in the future they wont re-issue a new license.

Surprised the fella isn't on to Wolverhampton council as we speak.

_________________
IDFIMH

The courts generally prefer to remit the matters back to the licensing committees.

_________________
IDFIMH

But the judge makes it sound like he's legally substituting a suspension for the revocation:



Makes it sound more like he's imposing it rather than remitting it, which was why the phrase "should the council agree with the court's ruling" seemed inconsistent.

You could be right.

I suppose as the fella doesn't have a license at present, and the judge can't issue a new one, he has merely said the revocation was unlawful and the council should license him but suspend that license for a year.

Which in my view is a bit of a mess.

If the council issued him with a year license, which they can, then once that year is up there is nothing stopping them not re-issuing.

Suspending for a year, IMO, makes a mockery of the licensing system.

_________________
IDFIMH