Taxi Driver Online

This is the official council press release.

Interesting that the action seems to relate simply to obstructing the LO rather than any of the usual stuff.

Which begs the question, why did he scarper? Maybe he thought the Gedling LO had no jurisdiction because he's plated by Nottingham

(Maybe the two councils have some sort of enforcement protocol, which I suppose would be required for the obstruction prosecution to be successful? )

But that's another odd thing about the stuff below - seems to be implying he was illegally plying for hire, but there's no mention of any action taken in that regard.

Also, check out the headline and then the explanation regarding plying for hire - headline says he was a taxi driver, but the later implication seems to be that he was illegally plying for hire as a PHD because he was close to an 'area reserved for taxis'

Of course, readers on here will see through that, but any member of the public would rightfully be confused and misled by it all.


Taxi Driver convicted thanks to body cam footage

https://www.gedling.gov.uk/resident/lat ... ootage.php

Gedling Borough Council have successfully prosecuted a Nottingham City Taxi driver who fled when approached for a safety check.

In December 2021, a Gedling Borough Council Licencing Enforcement Officer approached a Nottingham City Council Private Hire Vehicle being driven by Mr Manzoor Alam of Arnold. The vehicle was parked opposite the entrance to Asda on Front Street, Arnold, near to an area reserved for taxis to drop off and pick up passengers.

Private Hire Vehicles, such as the one driven by Mr Alam, can only take bookings by prior appointment and cannot pick up fares who flag them down or approach them at the roadside. If a driver does carry out any of these actions, it is known as plying for hire and is a breach of licensing conditions and a criminal offence.

The Licencing Enforcement Officer approached the vehicle driven by Mr Alam to ask him what he was doing and to perform a safety check on it. The officer announced that they were going to perform a routine inspection on the vehicle, at which point Mr Alam drove off, ignoring the officer’s request.

CCTV footage also showed the driver mounting the pavement to get around other vehicles after the offence.

Gedling Borough Council Officers used this footage to identify the driver and worked in partnership with Nottingham City Council’s Licencing Team to carry out an interview under caution, later taking legal action against the driver through the courts.

Mr Alam was convicted of wilfully obstructing a Gedling Borough Council Licencing Enforcement Officer, fined £336, and ordered to pay a £34 victim surcharge as well as £720 in prosecution costs.

Councillor David Ellis, Portfolio Holder for Public Protection said;

“We are committed to ensuring the safety of our residents and checks like these by our Licencing Officers help to protect the public from unsafe and illegal practices, such as drivers who are not properly licensed, insured, or who are operating outside of their licensed area.

Not only that, but they also help ensure that our Gedling Borough licenced drivers, don’t lose trade to those trying to take advantage and operate outside of the rules.

We will continue to work in partnership with other licensing authorities to keep our borough safe, and this conviction sends a very clear message that these offences will not be tolerated.”

Body cam footage on the council's video here.

Not the most compelling evidence for a criminal conviction, in my opinion

And it all kind of reminds me of a Jeremy Vine video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j6kP5GbC_Y

might have just had a job come in and be heading to it

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

I suspect the councils do have some kind of joint enforcement protocol in place.

Maybe the fella zipped off because he had iffy tyres, or had been smoking/drinking in his car.

The fact that he was parked near a local pick-up point allows, in my view, the officer to ask him why he was there.

_________________
IDFIMH

Indeed, Sussex, I don't doubt the LO was justified in approaching the car, but in my layman's opinion the evidence that the driver obstructed him isn't particularly compelling in terms of the criminal standard of proof.

And, I mean, he mounted the pavement to get past stationary traffic? That's never happened before

There's one comment beneath the YouTube video. Quite interesting, and from someone who obviously knows what they're talking about:


To be fair in return, I don't think it was necessarily the LO's approach that was the problem - he didn't really get the chance to identify himself, or whatever the necessary protocol is.

On the other hand, because of that, the evidence for a criminal prosecution doesn't seem particularly compelling.

Most obviously, it doesn't seem clear that the driver was fully aware of what was going on, at least in terms of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

It might depend on whether he had his window open, for example. It looks like it was open, or maybe it was the rear tints that make it look open when it was actually closed

And what might come across quite loudly via the LO's microphone might not have seemed the same from the driver's perspective, if he was listening to music, for example.

And, again, maybe if he'd really had something to hide then he would have also been facing action on something more specific (of course, there could be other action in train, most obviously a licensing hearing or sanction).

Of course, as Sussex says, it could have been something like a smoking offence, in which case it could never be proved retrospectively.

But apart from that, I've got nothing to say on the matter