Taxi Driver Online

The usual huffing and puffing from councillors here, but the important substantive stuff isn't disclosed. I mean, he refused to take a 'mobility scooter'

Of course, we don't know what kind of vehicle the driver had, nor the details about the mobility scooter.

So without knowing all that, not that easy to comment. But at first glance this looks harsh, although he does have a history of, er, stuff


Shipston taxi driver has licence revoked for refusing to take man in mobility scooter

https://www.stratford-herald.com/news/s ... k-9303010/

A TAXI driver who refused to take a disabled passenger has had his Hackney Carriage licence revoked.

Christopher Parker, from Shipston, was reported to Stratford District Council for refusing to take a fare from a man who was in a mobility scooter.

The 69-year-old, who was in his Hackney Carriage vehicle, had been available for hire at a taxi rank in Stratford town centre.

The district council said Parker, who had been a licensed Hackney Carriage driver since 1991, had received a considerable number of warnings and had previous action taken against him.

Following the latest complaint, the council’s licensing panel ruled he had breached his duty under s165 of the Equality Act 2010, which requires drivers of a wheelchair accessible taxi to carry a wheelchair user, and Section 164a, which imposes a duty on drivers to provide reasonable mobility assistance.

Cllr Christopher Kettle, legal and community safety portfolio holder at the council, said: “Under the Equality Act, licensed taxi drivers using accessible vehicles must not discriminate against disabled passengers and they should also give them assistance when required.

“Actions such as these is inexcusable and certainly not the high standard that we expect from our licensed drivers who all undergo disability awareness training to ensure they are aware of their legal obligation.”

Cllr Chris Mills, the licensing panel chairman added: “Taxi drivers hold a position of trust and have a duty of care, and when drivers fail in this duty we have no hesitation in revoking their licence.”

Parker can appeal against the decision to a magistrates’ court.

There's a wee bit more detail in the official press release, but nothing really that clarifies the vehicle/scooter thing:

https://www.stratford.gov.uk/news/press ... tem/137941

And this seems to be the minutes relating to the revocation, but it's all so vague it could be anyone. It does refer to accessibility stuff, but what happened is merely referrred to as an 'incident', and that's it

It does say, though, that the driver had been suspended three times before, albeit for shortish periods of eight to twelve weeks

https://democracy.stratford.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=45009

many times I had to rescue people with disability scooters who'd run out of juice but the really big ones are very hard to get up the ramps .

That said it sounds as if this driver has a record of being a bit of a jobsworth

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

Looks like these scooters can vary in weight from around 35kg to maybe 100kg for the bigger models. So that's about 6 stone to 16 stone.

Then there's the weight of the passenger, which is obviously unknown, but the combined weight could easily be 30 stone

And not clear precisely what the WAV spec is in Stratford, but can only find some photos of Peugeout Premier style vehicles, like this one here:

https://scontent.fgla2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/ ... e=6411E7AC

Assuming it's a vehicle like that, I've no idea about the practicalities of getting a mobility scooter in, and in terms of stuff like straps and securing it safely etc.

But there's zero information in the article about stuff like that, and instead crude statements of the law, and moralising from councillors. So much for openness and transparency

you can't strap mobility scooters in but the weight & thick rubber tyres mean they don't move under normal driving conditions. The lightweight ones I used to lift into the boot

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

Oh, I see. And I thought the straps were there to secure the [whatever] under abnormal driving conditions

So you're saying that the mobility scooter in the case above couldn't have been strapped in?

I'm certainly no expert regarding stuff like that, but that's interesting to know

believe you me I've tried to find a way but they are NOT designed to be strapped down

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

There has got to be more to this.

Some of those things are massive and weighty. If the punter can't get out then that's a lot of weight for the ramps.

And if the fella has breached the act then why wasn't he prosecuted?

_________________
IDFIMH

It's all a bit mysterious, but maybe they thought the criminal standard of proof threshold was bit too onerous.

And, I mean, one of the defences to the charge is that the person and 'mobility aid' can't be carried safely

Anyway, unlike some, didn't stop them splattering the driver's name all over the press

I think everyone knows that in a City with 100% Wav provision I actually specialise in dealing with passengers with wheelchairs.

That said I get my nose out of joint with the "Mobility Scooter" (Chariot) brigade.

No chariot has to be carried. They are not designed for carriage in vehicles, not just WAV Taxis but Busses, Trains, Coaches and even in a private car provided under the Mobility scheme.

Wheelchairs suitable for Carriage have to be provided with marked fixing points for carriage. No Chariot has these.

Wheelchairs are designed to allow the occupant to have a seat belt for the duration of the journey. You can't do that in a Chariot.

The chariot has very low ground clearance, so using the (approximately 7ft) 2 channel ramps is a non starter (especially the 3 wheeler type) because of the clearance for the rims of the ramps. Also the longer than wheelchair wheelbase means it grounds at the bottom and again at the top of the ramps. The shorter full width ramp means the grounding at top and bottom is even worse.

I will only carry a chariot if:
a. The passenger can board and alight from my WAV using the step. (Possibly with assistance.)
b. The chariot is light enough for me to lift it into (and out of) the vehicle.
c. Despite no safe points or markings, I must be able to secure it using seatbelts or rope.

Any of those conditions not met, I refuse the job. No exceptions.

To clarify a little further, the DfT make it clear that only Standard Manual wheelchairs must be carried. There is a standard defined which is basically the wheelchair we remember from our youth, it has 2 large wheels, rather like Bicycle wheels and two smaller wheels at the front which can turn. It is further defined by having maximum dimensions.

There is a variant by adding a "Power Pack". This is a motor with rubber wheels which is at the back and assists the "Pusher" up hills etc. and it can hitched up off the floor - so it becomes a standard again.

Electric wheelchairs do not have to be carried. There is NO DfT test for vehicles to pass to carry non-standard wheelchairs. This is not acceptable but it is what it is. The problem for the DfT is, there is no standard electric wheelchair so they can't devise a test.

To quote from the article:
breached his duty under s165 of the Equality Act 2010, which requires drivers of a wheelchair accessible taxi to carry a wheelchair user, and Section 164a, which imposes a duty on drivers to provide reasonable mobility assistance.
(I have made the most pertinent bold.)

My own opinion is, if you can take an electric wheelchair, you should, out of common humanity if nothing else.

The "Shipston Driver" was not incorrect in refusing a Mobility Scooter. I am obviously not aware of the full story but from the very few facts available I would suggest that he should not have been revoked and would have a very good chance of reversal at the Magistrates Court.

If it is all as reported, then Stratford District Council should not have taken ANY ACTION.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

Further to my post above.

DfT asked for a report into the "Standard Manual Wheelchair" or "Reference Wheelchair" and it was published last year.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... report.pdf

You can find the standard and dimensions at page 97.

It says at the beginning that Hackney and PH provision is included - we seem to be ignored in the "Key findings and next steps". Page 75 onward.

Whatever any eventual outcome, don't hold your breath for quick changes.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

I used to have a customer who had one of these the motor disengaged and it had a sort of ribbon attached which lifted it up and then tied it on easy to load.

Unfortunately as I was the ONLY wav in town the local mobility scooter shop used to give his clients my number in case he was unavailable to attend breakdowns so did quite a few on Thursdays (his day off) but always with the customer transferring onto a seat.

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

Well it's all done and dusted, but no more illumination regarding the kind of stuff discussed above.

But he's withdrawn his appeal, and he's nearly £4k down

But unless and until I know the full details, I still don't trust the council on this one


Licensed driver withdraws appeal against revoked licence

https://www.stratford.gov.uk/news/press ... tem/138071

A taxi driver has withdrawn his appeal against the decision by Stratford-on-Avon District Council to revoke his licence.

Mr Parker aged 69 and from Shipston-on-Stour, had appealed to the Magistrate's Court, following the decision by the District Council's Licensing Panel in March 2023, to revoke his licence.

This followed a complaint received in January 2023, from a member of the public, who was in a mobility scooter, that the driver, Mr Parker, refused to carry him in his Hackney Carriage vehicle, whilst plying for hire on a taxi rank within Stratford-upon-Avon town centre.

Mr Parker appealed against the decision and the appeal hearing was due to be heard on Monday, 9 October 2023.

Cllr Lorraine Grocott, Environmental and Neighbourhood Services Portfolio at the District Council said: "Under the Equality Act 2010, licensed taxi drivers using accessible vehicles must not discriminate against disabled passengers and they should also give them assistance when required.

"Actions such as these are inexcusable and certainly not the high standard that we expect from our licensed drivers who all undergo disability awareness training to ensure they are aware of their legal obligation."

Mr Parker's revocation is with immediate effect, and he is no longer a licensed driver with Stratford-on-Avon District Council.

The Court also ordered Mr Parker to pay costs of £3,696 to the District Council.

From 1st January 2010, all Hackney Carriage vehicles licensed by Stratford-on-Avon District Council are required to be wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAVs) so that those members of the community who are disabled or have mobility issues and who require assistance have reasonable access to transport by way of a Hackney Carriage.

I suspect if he'd had good legal representation this might have been winable because as chris said WAV hackneys must carry wheelchair but nothing says they must carry mobility scooters.

That said this perhaps sets a worrying legal precedent

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