Taxi Driver Online

Not difficult to spot the error here. Or at least I'm assuming it's an error

Good photo, though


Taxi firm hit with 48-hour suspension for using unlicensed cars

https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news ... ur-5417196

Cleethorpes company Fon-A-Car tried to fight the decision in court but lost


Image: Grimsby Telegraph

A Cleethorpes taxi company has been hit with a suspension for allowing cars to operate without a licence.

Fon-A-Car has been suspended for 48 hours after it tried to appeal the decision which failed.

It came after the company allowed unlicensed private hire vehicles to continue to run.

The order was originally issued in September 2020 by North East Lincolnshire Council’s Hackney Carriage Sub-Committee.

It went to Grimsby Magistrates Court in March after Fon-A-Car appealed, where the decision was upheld.

Fon-A-Car, based in Market Street in Cleethorpes, provides services across North East Lincolnshire.

Councillor Ron Shepherd, portfolio holder for Safer and Stronger Communities at North East Lincolnshire Council, said vehicle licences were vital in ensuring public safety.

“Taxi drivers are incredibly important to our local transport network, with people of all ages relying on private hire taxi’s to get them to and from various appointments,” Councillor Shepherd said.

“Before getting a licence, vehicles go through thorough checks to make sure that they are safe and roadworthy. There are significant public safety concerns around using unlicensed taxis.

“It is right that anyone who ignores these rules receives an appropriate penalty.”

Passengers and members of the public can spot signs to check whether a taxi is properly licensed.

Taxis should clearly display a tariff card and the driver should have an ID card, issued by the council.

Vehicles should also have a plate on the rear bumper and a card on the dashboard with an expiry date.

'Taxi company', 'private hire vehicles', 'private hire taxis', 'taxis' should display tariff card, blah, blah.

An object lesson in how to confuse the public about HCs and PHVs.

The article above is just a rehash of the council's news release, so no clarification of the 48 hour thing. And the council's terminology is arguably even worse than the newspaper's - check out the headline and strapline


Private taxi operator suspended for running unlicensed vehicles

https://www.nelincs.gov.uk/private-taxi ... -vehicles/

Local private hire taxi company, Fon-a-Car, has been handed a 48-hour suspension for allowing private hire vehicles to operate without a license.

The suspension was issued by the Council’s Hackney Carriage Sub-Committee in September 2020 but went to Grimsby Magistrates Court in March 2021, following appeal, where the decision was upheld.

The suspension was issued after it was revealed that the operator had allowed private hire vehicles without a current license to continue to run.

Following an appeal by the operator, Magistrates agreed with the Sub-Committee decision and the 48-hour suspension was upheld.

Councillor Ron Shepherd, portfolio holder for Safer and Stronger Communities at North East Lincolnshire Council, said: “Taxi drivers are incredibly important to our local transport network, with people of all ages relying on private hire taxi’s to get them to and from various appointments.

“Before getting a license, vehicles go through thorough checks to make sure that they are safe and roadworthy. There are significant public safety concerns around using unlicensed taxis.

“It is right that anyone who ignores these rules receives an appropriate penalty.”

Passengers and members of the public can spot visual clues to check whether a taxi is properly licensed.

Taxis should clearly display a tariff card and the driver should have an ID card, issued by the Council.

Vehicles should also have a plate on the rear bumper and a card on the dashboard with an expiry date.

What a pathetic punishment?

I get it's not fair to punish drivers who have done nothing wrong, but a 48 hour ban for running unlicensed vehicles is pointless.

_________________
IDFIMH

Indeed that's why I wondered if there might be an error in the article, but can't shed any light on that.

So it's a ludicrous punishment, but I can't understand why the office would appeal it? Or is having to shut up shop for 48 hours sufficiently onerous that they feel the need to appeal?

Personally I wouldn't regard a 48-hour suspension as much of a punishment (just like a weekend off, basically), but I suppose it's different for those running an office?

And if that was the only punishment then I'm guessing they've gotten off pretty lightly with a 48 hour suspension for running unplated cars.

it serves as a warning and I bet it would have p*ss^d off a few of their customers

Now if they do it again they deserve to be shut down permanently

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

Yes, I suppose it's actually quite an effective punishment for a despatch office - long enough to disrupt business, but not long enough to put them out of business - so an effective deterrent without actually pushing them under.

Which in turn probably explains why they appealed a relatively short suspension, which wouldn't really bother an owner driver or one-man-band operator so much.

But don't know if they actually got off lightly at that, without actually seeing more details of what they did.

Not sure I would have appealed as the court can, and often does, amend the punishment.

_________________
IDFIMH