Taxi Driver Online

Anger over taxi safety charges

https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/ ... y-charges/


Image: Bradford Telegraph & Argus

THE OWNER of a cab firm has accused Bradford Council of trying to make money after several cars failed safety checks carried out by the authority.

Kaz Shehzad, of Local Cars and Taxis, said his cab failed its test because of a safety defect with bolts in his steering component and he had to pay a £100 ‘fine’.

However, when he got a second opinion and an MOT test was completed by Halfords and Kwik Fit, the vehicle passed, but he cannot get a taxi licence without first passing the Council’s inspection.

Mr Shehzad has called out the authority over the charges - which four of his drivers have already fallen victim to - when other garages have deemed their cabs roadworthy.

The Council said their test ensures cars are as safe as possible for the city’s customers.

Mr Shehzad told the Telegraph & Argus: “A couple of my drivers have had a £100 fine, but when they have gone to get a second opinion from a garage they have said there’s not a defect.

“Bradford Council has said they are using the right guidelines, but are failing them.

“Why are the drivers being penalised?

“Our company policy is for our drivers to take it to a garage and get an MOT, then take it to the Council.

Mr Shehzad said he had no problems with keeping people safe and that it was also his priority, but did not agree with the Council’s policy of fining drivers when other garages had deemed vehicles to be safe.

He added: “If MOT stations are saying the cars pass, then why is Bradford Council failing them? We need to be on the same page, but I feel like the Council is charging extra money for faults they shouldn’t be charging for.

“Public safety is a must, but if drivers are taking their cars into garages and passing MOTs, but failing them with the Council, that’s not right.”

A spokesperson for Bradford Council said: “With regard to the specific complaint by Mr Shehzad, the Council cannot comment on the standard of inspection by other garages but the vehicle in question failed for having a steering component secured by using 8mm bolts in 10mm holes.

“We are confident that the vehicle safety inspection process, which is not an MOT, achieves its purpose of making sure customers in vehicles licensed by the Council are as safe as possible, which is the number one priority for Bradford Council.

“A £100 re-test fee only applies where a vehicle has failed a safety inspection due to a serious fault.

“Vehicle inspection failure rates have fallen significantly since the introduction of the re-test fee and we are confident that by working closely with the trades that this figure will continue to fall.

“Bradford Council’s Licensing Service is in constant dialogue with the trades and welcomes comments on vehicle safety to ensure that improvements continue where possible.

“An independent review of Bradford Council’s Hackney carriage and private hire operations identified passenger safety and good practice as the main priorities of the service. The service was found to be operating in accordance with the highest national standards.”

I get that there can be differences of opinion regarding faults like this. Which is why I think a £100 retest fee is over the top - you could get an MoT done one day, take it to the council test the next day, and end up with a £100 retest fee?

But, and accepting the difference of opinion between the council testers and the MoT stations, if the car passed an MoT can the fault found really be deemed 'serious'?

Depends on the station. Around here the council allows you to use a number of approved garages for your test and there are one or two that are known to pass damn near anything.

Including one that has had its right to test HC and PH vehicles suspended twice!

same here but it is 12 miles away I use the same garage as services the car but my one gripe with them is that if you ask for an MOT at the same time you have to pay in full for both no discount for combining them

I have to say though £100 is extortionate and sounds like the council are trying to profit from the situation

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

Join the campaign to get April fools jokes banned for 364 days a year !

It may be worth checking with a main dealer to see whether the 8mm bolt in a 10mm hole was an original equipment item. did the council examiner actually remove the bolt to discover this? I know DVSA commercial examiners are not allowed to remove bolts and the like to examine other things.

It may be the bolts were obviously moving in the oversize holes in which case they should have been noticed by Halfords or Kwik fit, neither of which are renowned in certain areas for their technical excellence. Examiners are allowed to pull back gaiters on brake components and CV joints to examine the integrity of the gaiters, but not to check for wear of the cv joints.

Speaking with a lorry examiner years ago, there was a problem with certain tractor units. There were holes in the chassis under the fifth wheel mounting, no bolts in them. It transpired that these holes were there for the tractor unit to be uprated to take a heavier weight, so as supplied to carry say 20 tons, they only needed 6 bolts each side; with 12 bolts each side they could take 30 tons.

It could be on this man's cars the bigger holes are for uprated steering/engine/estate car? Was the steering component actually insecure/loose/ or about to fall off?

Since when does a retest cost £100?

_________________
IDFIMH

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

surely you are not suggesting Bradford council are operating a cartel Trevor

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

Join the campaign to get April fools jokes banned for 364 days a year !