Taxi Driver Online

Story looked quite run of the mill at first, but interesting because he *did* have an allergy, but hadn't applied for the exemption certificate.

So prosecution seems a bit harsh - maybe a slapped wrist or short suspension more appropriate (although no word what happened with regard the licensing angle, but because it says the council has since given him an exemption certificate, presumably safe to say he's still in the trade).

Which leads on to the other interesting angle, namely the level of costs requested by the council (nearly £2k) and the derisory amount actually awarded by the court (£316).

As I said, slapped wrist might have been more appropriate, and not wasted so much taxpayers' money


Taxi driver with allergies fined for not picking up visually impaired man and guide dog

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-ne ... ot-3772371

The defendant's actions breached the Equality Act 2010

A taxi driver refused to pick up a disabled person from a care centre in Exeter because he had a dog with him.

Mohammad Alam, 31, was called to the WESC Foundation on Topsham Road but when he saw the dog said he would not take it.

The cab driver, who works for Apple Taxis, claimed dogs brought him out in a rash. But magistrates in Exeter were told he did not have an exemption certificate based on an allergy and his actions were in breach of the Equality Act 2010.

The defendant, of Copplestone Drive in Exeter, was fined and told to pay costs of £316.

He said he was sorry about what he had done but genuinely did have an allergy. He pleaded guilty to failing to carry out a booking for a disabled person accompanied by a dog.

The incident happened on June 10 last year.

Magistrates were told the taxi firm had accepted a booking from the centre, which provides a range of care and support for visually impaired people and those with other complex needs.

The centre had a contract with Apple but when Alam turned up he refused to take the dog, saying he had a medical condition. A new cab was ordered and arrived 20 minutes later.

Mervyn Williams, defending, said Alam had taken dogs in the past but stopped after developing a skin condition linked to animal fur. He told his employers about it the previous October and had not picked up any animals since.

He said the defendant, who has no previous convictions, had now been given an exemption certificate by the council.

Exeter City Council, who prosecuted the case, asked for costs of £1,934.

Magistrates queried why prosecution costs in the case appeared high, considering there had been a guilty pleas. Usually the Crown Prosecution Service would ask for costs of £85 in a criminal case.

Scott Horner, prosecuting for Exeter City Council, admitted the costs may seem alarming but at lot of work had gone into preparing the case and the majority of the bill would fall on rate payers in the city.

I agree. Was this prosecution really in the public interest?

_________________
IDFIMH

I suspect that £316 included any fine and victim surcharge, so I suspect the council will be getting £85.

I also suspect at the back of the court would have been a number of council officers, all getting paid for doing nothing.

_________________
IDFIMH

Following on from the comments made by the bench in relation to the costs requested by Exeter Council, it worth mentioning the costs given to Wealden when they prosecuted an illegal driver.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=35367

Wealden requested (I assume) £744, whereas Exeter requested £1934.

Now Wealden's costs would have been far more significant because they had to prepare for a trail and their staff would have had to attend court to give evidence, even though the defendant didn't.

With the Exeter case a trial didn't take place as the fella pleaded guilty.

I say well done to the Exeter bench.

_________________
IDFIMH