This is very messy and the details difficult to follow. But maybe the Uber angle is the most interesting one, but it's not really examined in any substantive way, and reads more like it was treated as a minor detail.
Bristol City Council bans cabbie who tried to pin speeding offences on another driverhttps://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bris ... ie-7794112The driver also allegedly used laughing gasA Bristol cabbie suspected of multiple speeding offences has been stripped of his licence after blaming a friend who rented his car. The private hire driver was also accused of using laughing gas and littering, which he denied, but city councillors ruled it indicated a pattern of behaviour that raised doubts about his suitability to hold a permit and showed his standards had fallen “well below” those expected.
They revoked both his driver and vehicle licences after hearing he was convicted by Bath magistrates earlier this year of speeding in April 2022 and failing to provide driver’s identification in relation to another speeding offence last January. They ruled that he dishonestly tried to pin three previous speeding offences, in a six-week period in 2021, on a fellow driver who rented his vehicle but who was unlicensed and should not have taken passengers because of a conviction for failing to provide documents for an offence.
Recently published minutes of the Bristol City Council public safety and protection sub-committee on August 16 said Avon and Somerset Police’s taxi compliance officer raised concerns with the local authority in June about the licence holder’s “fit and proper” status. The papers said three speeding offences in June and July, 2021, were committed either by him, referred to as OMM, or a man he nominated to drive the car on his behalf, AR, but that the person behind the wheel had “failed to provide appropriate identification when required to do so and may have conspired to pervert the course of justice”.
They said: “In addressing the meeting, OMM explained that covid had badly affected his financial situation since taxiing was his livelihood. Since he knew AR, he had rented his car to him to enable him to support his family.”
The licence holder, who was not named in the document, told the panel that he was the driver for the speeding offence in April 2022, the minutes said. They said: “OMM could not remember whether or not he was driving the vehicle for offences on June 1, June 13 and July 12, 2021.
“However, it was noted that it was likely he was since Uber identification was usually required before he would be able to use the vehicle. OMM had continued to rent his vehicle to AR despite AR having been convicted of failing to provide documents for an offence in July 2021.
“OMM acknowledged that it was wrong to rent his vehicle to an unlicensed driver but needed to pay bills to support his family.” The minutes said he was recently convicted at Bath magistrates court of speeding on April 23, 2022, and failing to provide driver ID for speeding on January 3 this year.
“Having listened to OMM’s explanation regarding the individual he named as the driver of the vehicle on three occasions, the committee did not consider this to be credible,” they said. “Therefore, on a balance of probabilities the members believed that OMM had acted dishonestly by giving the incorrect details, that he was the driver of the vehicle and had been speeding on all three occasions.
“Even if OMM’s explanation was the truth, at the very least, he had allowed an unlicensed driver to use his private hire vehicle which placed the public at risk as his insurance would not have covered this particular use of the vehicle. The motoring convictions and offending behaviour proved to the satisfaction of the council concerning the multiple speeding offences indicated that OMM did not exhibit the behaviours of a safe road user and one that is suitable to drive professionally.
“The committee also considered the recent complaint from a member of the public concerning the use of nitrous oxide and littering by the driver which OMM had denied.” The report said that although this complaint had not been proceeded with, national standards for licensing cabbies stated that “patterns of behaviour such as complaints against drivers, even when they do not result in further action, may be indicative of characteristics that raise doubts over the suitability to hold a licence”.
It said: “The overall picture presented by OMM was a licensee whose standards had fallen well below the high standards the council is entitled to expect from those whom it licences. There had been multiple offences over a period of time which gave rise to a greater cause for concern and demonstrated a pattern of inappropriate behaviour.
“Consequently, the committee could no longer be satisfied that OMM was a fit and proper person to hold a private hire driver’s licence. Given he was the sole proprietor and person licensed to drive his private hire vehicle, the vehicle licence would also be revoked.”
Login
Register
FAQ
