Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:48 am

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 4563
Not so often we read about this kind of stuff in the TfL context. No doubt there are many refusals, suspensions and revocations, but we just don't normally get to read about them :?


Victory against TfL in the Central Criminal Court

https://www.taxidefencebarristers.co.uk ... nal-court/

Taxi Defence Barristers have obtained a Crown Court Order quashing decisions by Transport for London (TfL) and the Magistrates Court in a licence refusal case.

The details

Our client had a conviction in 2014 which was domestic assault. As part of that sentence there was included a Non-molestation Order preventing him from having contact with the complainant. In 2016 the complainant made false allegations and complaints alleging that our client had breached the Order. It was established that she was not telling the truth and our client was simply convicted of an intended breach.

Since 2014 our client had completed a series of courses we outlined, had worked for various charities and had rehabilitated himself such that we supported his application to reobtain in 2018 a PHV licence.

TfL however refused on the basis of two violent offence succession rule. We argued in representations that the breach did not constitute a second violent offence.

The appeal

TfL refused to take note of our arguments and the matter proceeded to the Magistrates’ Court on appeal. In the Magistrates’ Court TfL relied on evidence not previously disclosed. Taxi Defence Barristers argued in court this was not accurate and TfL had failed to disclose it. The Magistrates however agreed with TfL and turned down the appeal.

We appealed to the Crown Court. In a hearing based on oral submissions, the Crown Court agreed with our position that not enough weight had been given to the huge efforts our client had made to rehabilitate.

The Outcome

The Crown Court upheld the appeal and ruled that all previous Orders and decisions be quashed. Our client is now driving.


Taxi Defence Barristers secures victory against TfL

Taxi Defence Barristers have successfully appealed a decision by Transport for London (TfL) in a private hire licence refusal case.

https://www.taxidefencebarristers.co.uk ... ainst-tfl/

The details

Our client had his private hire driver’s licence suspended in 2017 following an arrest for alleged rape. In 2018, and following the investigation, the case against our client was confirmed as not proceeding to charge.

Despite this, TfL took 11 months to make a decision about the fitness of our client to hold a private hire driver’s licence. TfL finally decided to revoke our client’s private hire driving licence 3 days before the expiry of his 3-year licence.

The appeal

Taxi Defence Barristers successfully argued against TfL’s decision to revoke our client’s licence on a number of grounds but including on the basis of TfL’s own behaviour in this case and policies.

Other grounds relied on included:

• Lack of “full” information and evidence before the decision was made
• Critiqued of the decision letter from TfL as being sloppy, illogical in places and showed the decision had not been set against TfL’s own rules
• Evidence from our client
• Lack of consideration of any mitigation put forward (including the obvious point that the matter was dropped which is beyond mitigation)

TfL attempted to persuade our client to drop the appeal to protect its reputation given the disproportionately long time it took to decide to revoke our client’s private hire driver’s licence. The request was resisted on a very important point of consideration. If our client had withdrawn his appeal, TfL would have relied on the revocation (and absence of appeal against it) to refuse his fresh application making the case so much harder to win next time.

The outcome

The outcome of the appeal for our client is that the TfL legal representative said he will recommend the next application by our client goes through without the need for an appeal.

Client quote: “I don’t know what to say – I cannot believe you have won this. I was so close to withdrawing it because of what TfL were telling me and what everyone else was saying. You were the only one urging me to continue – thank you so much Stephen. You have been brilliant and I will make sure everyone knows.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 7:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 4563
Taxi Defence Barristers secures TfL victory and costs awarded

https://www.taxidefencebarristers.co.uk ... s-awarded/

Taxi Defence Barristers’ client Mr NS was granted a PHV licence in August 2017.

In 2018 UBER passed to TfL information about a series of complaints made by riders. There related to aggressive, abusive and discriminatory behaviour, a fraudulent cleaning charge and sexual indecency.

As a result TfL revoked his licence.

Mr NS instructed Taxi Defence Barristers to advise and represent him in appealing the decision by TfL. The court was persuaded by our arguments based on the lack of credible evidence other than hearsay complaints from UBER, a complete absence of any investigation carried out by TfL and their flawed application of their own policy.

As a consequence, the Court quashed the revocation, ordered TfL to pay a significant proportion of Mr NS’ legal fees and pay Mr NS a fixed amount of money to compensate him.

“I cannot believe you have done this for me – everyone else said I had no chance. Thank you so much. I will tell anyone who needs a licensing lawyer just to come straight to you. My family owe you big time.” – Mr NS


Taxi Defence Barristers secure victory in TfL case

https://www.taxidefencebarristers.co.uk ... -tfl-case/

Taxi Defence Barristers represented an applicant (Mr MA) who was refused a private hire licence by TfL. He was refused on the basis of a DBS entry conviction dating back to 2012-2013 concerning the supply of Class B drugs.

Stephen McCaffrey, Head of Taxi Defence Barristers, advised Mr MA last year (2018) to wait a year before proceeding on advice that his chances would be much stronger.

Accepting the advice, Mr MA waited and submitted his application this year. He was however refused on the basis of the DBS entry.

Taxi Defence Barristers initially attempted to get TfL to give special consideration to Mr MA’s case given the policy allowed applications after a 5-7 year conviction free period however TfL wanted to apply the higher limit.

We advised our client to appeal and put together a bundle on his behalf arguing that TfL had failed to exercise their discretion and consider the case on its own merits. We advanced a strong argument as to why they should have deviated from their policy and why the Court should do the same.

The Court agreed. They accepted that Mr MA had clearly changed, committed the offences when very young and now had a family to support. They also accepted the courses he had taken (on our advice) and the references we submitted from select individuals as clear demonstration he could be trusted.

The Court quashed the decision of TfL to refuse the application and granted him a private hire licence.


TfL drop case following submission by Taxi Defence Barristers

https://www.taxidefencebarristers.co.uk ... arristers/

Taxi Defence Barristers represented an applicant (Mr FC) who applied in 2018 for a private hire licence.

In March 2019 Mr FC was refused on the basis of his DBS entry. This included a conviction in March 2012 for an offence of assisting unlawful immigration into an EU member state. He was sentenced to 22 months immediate imprisonment.

TfL refused his application and he sought our assistance in appealing. Two weeks before the appeal date TfL considered the evidence served on his behalf by Taxi Defence Barristers including a character bundle.

TfL decided they no longer wished to contest our appeal and reversed their own decision. They issued him a private hire licence with a warning as to future conduct.

Mr FC is now a licenced driver.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2019 9:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 4563
This is from a couple of weeks ago:


Green badge cab driver back on the road after representation from Taxi Defence Barristers

https://www.taxidefencebarristers.co.uk ... arristers/

A London green badge taxi driver has had his licence restored after a Transport for London decision was overturned on reconsideration.

Taxi Defence Barristers’ Lead Counsel Stephen McCaffrey represented a Mr AH who, after being licensed for over 12 years, had his licence revoked following conviction in the Crown Court of two regulatory offences.

In addition, TfL also raised health concerns related to previous cancer treatment and heart fitness tests. TfL were disputing the adequacy of Mr AH’s medical reports in applying DVLA Group 2 standards.

Mr AH was initially advised to seek an appeal to the Magistrates’ Court. However, on advice from Stephen McCaffrey, a request to reconsider was submitted to TfL.

Following full submissions in respect of the offences and the context of the case – as well as full submissions on TfL own policy – a recommendation was made by the panel to licensing that the decision be overturned.

TfL licensing followed that recommendation and reversed their own decision. They decided to issue a warning and allow Mr AH to continue driving. He remains a licence black cab green badge taxi driver.

On the matter relating to Mr AH’s health, Stephen McCaffrey successfully argued that these concerns were irrelevant relaying on proper information from Mr AH’s consultant that explained how TfL were incorrectly applied their own policy.

“It was a pleasure meeting you, if my court cases had been transposed and I had utilised your services in my Crown Court case as well perhaps the outcome may have been different.

Hopefully I will not require your services again but in the unlikely event of myself or any of my friends requiring legal representation I would not hesitate in recommending your services. Thank you.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 28, 2019 9:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 4563
Quote:
Taxi Defence Barristers’ Lead Counsel Stephen McCaffrey represented a Mr AH who, after being licensed for over 12 years, had his licence revoked following conviction in the Crown Court of two regulatory offences.

Would be interesting to know precisely what the two 'regulatory offences' were.

Presumably nothing trivial, or the driver wouldn't have been prosecuted.

Quote:
In addition, TfL also raised health concerns related to previous cancer treatment and heart fitness tests. TfL were disputing the adequacy of Mr AH’s medical reports in applying DVLA Group 2 standards.[…]

On the matter relating to Mr AH’s health, Stephen McCaffrey successfully argued that these concerns were irrelevant relaying on proper information from Mr AH’s consultant that explained how TfL were incorrectly applied their own policy.

Again, would be interesting to know more details here.

Quote:
Mr AH was initially advised to seek an appeal to the Magistrates’ Court. However, on advice from Stephen McCaffrey, a request to reconsider was submitted to TfL.

Following full submissions in respect of the offences and the context of the case – as well as full submissions on TfL own policy – a recommendation was made by the panel to licensing that the decision be overturned.

TfL licensing followed that recommendation and reversed their own decision. They decided to issue a warning and allow Mr AH to continue driving.

Interesting from the procedural perspective. Do provincial licensing committees ever revisit decisions in this way once they're effectively done and dusted under standard procedures?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 3:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 43919
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
Presumably nothing trivial, or the driver wouldn't have been prosecuted.

Could be a simple case of speeding, if the driver appealed the ticket etc.

That would then go to the Mags Court, and on appeal to the Crown Court.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 3:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 43919
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
Interesting from the procedural perspective. Do provincial licensing committees ever revisit decisions in this way once they're effectively done and dusted under standard procedures?

I would hope so.

Bit like Charlie Boy's manor. They are reviewing a licensing decision.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2019 6:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 4563
Sussex wrote:
Bit like Charlie Boy's manor. They are reviewing a licensing decision.


Don't know if I expressed my point clearly enough, but if a licensing committee revokes a driver's badge (most obviously) after a hearing then can that decision be reviewed/revisited without appealing to a court? That's what seems to have happened here:

Quote:
Mr AH was initially advised to seek an appeal to the Magistrates’ Court. However, on advice from Stephen McCaffrey, a request to reconsider was submitted to TfL.

Following full submissions in respect of the offences and the context of the case – as well as full submissions on TfL own policy – a recommendation was made by the panel to licensing that the decision be overturned.

TfL licensing followed that recommendation and reversed their own decision. They decided to issue a warning and allow Mr AH to continue driving.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2019 8:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 43919
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
Don't know if I expressed my point clearly enough, but if a licensing committee revokes a driver's badge (most obviously) after a hearing then can that decision be reviewed/revisited without appealing to a court? That's what seems to have happened here:

Don't see why not.

Especially if new evidence/information is brought forward.

If anything I think it's quite refreshing for a licensing authority to review their decisions, rather than dragging it through the courts.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:06 am
Posts: 1325
Location: Bolton(best town around)
I am interested in how much there fees were you don't have to be spot on just the ballpoint figure I am happy you won the case I like wining

_________________
C. Oakes


The Hackney Association Ltd
bbha@btinternet.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2019 8:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 43919
Location: 1066 Country
charles007 wrote:
I am interested in how much there fees were you don't have to be spot on just the ballpoint figure I am happy you won the case I like wining

Give them a ring.

https://www.taxidefencebarristers.co.uk ... arristers/

But don't spend too much time on the call as it soons ramps up ££££££££££££sssss.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2019 8:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 4563
charles007 wrote:
I am interested in how much there fees were you don't have to be spot on just the ballpoint figure I am happy you won the case I like wining


You should remember the old saying, Charles - if you have to ask the price of something, then you probably can't afford it 8-[

And also reminds me of something I read on Twitter earlier today about legal action regarding Brexit:

Daniel Kawczynski MP wrote:
Following personal meeting with Barristers today I have shared written legal advice on loopholes in ‘Surrender Act’ with colleagues. Barristers believe we have case to take to Courts and encouraging me to pursue. Reflecting over weekend.


To which one response was:

Chris Cook, ex-BBC Newsnight wrote:
Just had a roofer round. He's encouraged me to get a new roof.


More seriously, though, my personal advice is that I'd only get lawyers involved in extreme circumstances, eg loss of badge or plate, and no other option.

Unless you've got very deep pockets. Which you may have, but I don't know 8-[


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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