Taxi Driver Online

Maybe it's just the way these things are expressed in legal terms, but when it says he was found guilty of 'permitting his vehicle to be used as an HC' and that it was a vehicle *belonging* to the perp, and he 'let his car be used as a taxi', it kind of makes it sound like someone else might have actually been driving it.

On the other hand, the rest of the piece simply sounds like he was the owner-driver of the vehicle

Anyways, at least it's a tad different from the usual plying for hire by cross-border PHVs at the Henley Regatta...


Driver counts cost of letting car be used as taxi without licence during Henley Regatta

https://www.southoxon.gov.uk/uncategori ... y-regatta/

A driver who let his car be used as a taxi during the Henley Regatta despite the vehicle being unlicensed has been ordered to pay more than £1,500 in fines and costs.

Raja Ilyas Hussain, 43, of Doolittle Avenue, High Wycombe, was found guilty of permitting his vehicle to be used as a hackney carriage without a licence and without the appropriate insurance at Oxford Magistrates’ Court at a hearing on 15 January, following a prosecution brought forward by South Oxfordshire District Council.

The court heard that on 15 August 2021, a vehicle belonging to Mr Hussain was observed to be displaying a “taxi” roof sign on Thameside in Henley on Thames.

But the vehicle was not displaying the required licence plate on the rear, which would identify it as a licensed vehicle.

Licensing Enforcement Officers, who were working in Henley-on-Thames during the annual Regatta in 2021, approached the vehicle to see whether the vehicle was licensed to be working in Henley. But the vehicle drove off immediately after officers identified themselves.

The court also heard that Mr Hussain had previously held a driver’s licence with South Oxfordshire District Council, so would have been fully aware of the requirements for drivers and vehicles to be licensed, insured and safety checked in order to carry members of the public.

After being found guilty, Mr Hussain was fined £440 for the unlawful plying for hire and £660 for not having the required insurance. Mr Hussain was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £440 and £800 towards prosecution costs. Mr Hussain’s was also given 8 penalty points on his driving licence.

The case was originally heard at the Magistrates’ Court in March 2022, but Mr Hussain applied for the case to be reopened, with the matter then heard in January 2024.

Councillor David Rouane, South Oxfordshire District Council Leader and responsible for Licensing and Community Safety, said: “As they are responsible for the safety of every person they convey in their vehicles, taxi drivers are legally required to have the correct licences before they start work.

“Safety is our number one priority and so we will take action against anyone working without a licence.”

Pedantic question, which I'm sure Sussex can answer - is it right to refer to a victim surcharge as a fine?

TaxiPoint refers to a £1,500 *fine* three times at the top of their article, which is presumably the two straightforward fines of £440 and £660 and the victim surcharge of £440. To be fair, they later refer to a 'financial penalty exceeding £1,500', which seems more accurate:


And I think that if they're not going to include the £800 prosecution costs (which is fair enough) then they should have mentioned the £800 after the mention of the 'financial penalty exceeding £1,500'

And haven't the council made a huge booboo as well with regards to the financials?

Even being ultra-pedantic and saying that 'fines and costs' doesn't include the victim surcharge (thus totally contradicting TaxiPoint), surely the fines and costs are £1,900?

Anyway, maybe I'm missing something, but I just included the whole lot in my thread title as the amount the driver is 'out of pocket'

Which is £2,340, surely?

And while it's one thing for TaxiPoint to add a wee bit of embellishment, as I've said before sometimes they seem to simply add incorrect facts. Eg:


However, the council's press release doesn't actually say that, so unless TaxiPoint has other information, what they state isn't correct:


Call me pedantic, but legally there's a big difference between what a court heard, and what a court concluded

Pretty sure that in the context here, what the court heard was part of the prosecution case, thus not what the court concluded.

Has this really taken 2 and a half years to get to court?

_________________
IDFIMH

Nothing pedantic at all, it is not a fine. It is shock horror, a surcharge for victims.

And it wouldn't have been £440 back then, as it was 10% of the fines at that time. Now it's 40%.

_________________
IDFIMH

I'm desperately trying to work out what happened here.

The amounts he was fined etc recently are sums usually given to people who don't turn up to court, but this fella has asked for the case to be reopened, which is usually when people don't know that proceedings have originally taken place until the bailiffs turn up.

So I'm guessing he didn't turn up to either hearing, which doesn't make sense as to why the court would open up matters for someone not bothering to turn up.

If he didn't turn up, maybe the court got the hump and did reopen which would lead to the 40% victim surcharge.

So the £2,340 is correct.

_________________
IDFIMH

Sussex, the procedural stuff certainly didn't make any sense to me, so I just ignored that and tried to add up the figures

But if you can't make sense of it either, I'd guess it just isn't adequately explained. Which is fair enough, to an extent, because members of the public reading stuff like that shouldn't really be needing to read about fine legal technicalities and procedural nitty gritty etc.

On the other hand, that's what 'comms' people and the like are supposed to be there for - to summarise technical and specialist stuff and make it 'accessible' to members of the public. On the other hand, stuff like that above is full of holes and obvious inconsistencies like the, er, financial levies.

But, again, that maybe underlines shortcomings with the whole comms thing - it's all written by people who won't know much about licensing, the law and the courts system, therefore something's lost in the translation, so to speak...

Anyway, maybe interesting to look at how the press have rehashed the council press release, and in particular how they've interpreted and portrayed the 'fines' and 'costs' etc

To summarise, the various er, financial levies imposed are, according to the press notice at the top of the page:

Plying for hire fine: £440
No insurance fine: £660
Victim surcharge: £440
Costs: £800

Total: £2,340

Anyway, Bucks Free Press simply parrots what the council said about the money. To be fair, at least 'ordered to pay' in the headline is accurate in that it encompasses the fines, victim surcharge and costs. Problem is, of course, that the £1,500 figure is wrong.

And then it says the £1,500 is 'fines and costs'. Which again parrots precisely what the council says, but even if you ignore the victim surcharge, 'fines and costs' clearly amount to £1,900. And why would you include the two straightforward fines and the costs, but ignore the victim surcharge anyway?


Driver ordered to pay £1,500 after using car as taxi without a licence

https://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/2 ... t-licence/

A driver who let his car be used as a taxi during the Henley Regatta despite the vehicle being unlicensed has been ordered to pay more than £1,500 in fines and costs.

Slightly different approach from the Oxford Mail, and the headline can't really be disputed - he was certainly fined.

But then it takes a slightly different tack, and does use the words 'more than £2,000'. So that's the only publication to depart from the £1,500 figure

But it says that's a 'fine' while it clearly isn't. Even being generous and assuming the £440 victim surcharge is part of the 'fine', that's still less than £2,000, so to get to 'more than £2,000' you have to include the costs of £800...

So the council's figures simply don't add up, and three different publications - TaxiPoint and the two newspapers - simply parrot and mis-categorise the figures without questioning them.

One possibility is maybe that the council press release figures are incorrect, and the three publications have simply rehashed them and thus repeated the inaccuracies.

Think it's been pointed out on here before that one or two of the South Oxon Council's press releases have contained obvious errors


Driver fined after using car as taxi during Henley Regatta

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/24140 ... y-regatta/

A driver who let his car be used as a taxi during the Henley Regatta despite it being unlicensed has been fined more than £2000.

A third article from a conventional media source (the Reading Chronicle) looks identical to the one in the Bucks Free Press. But, again, you could read half of it and come away with the impression that the perp wasn't actually driving the car. I mean, where in this conveys any other impression?


But maybe that circle can be squared by the final sentence - the car drove off when approached, so Mr Hussain was never actually caught in the act of being the actual driver

Hence the roundabout language of 'letting his car be used', 'permitting his vehicle to be used' and 'a vehicle belonging to Mr Hussain'?

It looks like he asked the court to reopen the case. Usually that only happens if he can convince the court that he didn't receive any of the paperwork, thus he never had the chance to defence the charges.

The court clearly agreed and set a date for the new trial.

It appears, by the fines amount, he didn't turn up for the trial, which proceeded in his absence.

If a person doesn't turn up, then the court uses the amount of £440 as the weekly income.

No insurance is a category C fine, which is 150% of the weekly income. Thus the £660.

The plying charge is an A fine, which is 50% of the weekly income. Thus £220.

Which like most of the stuff in the article doesn't add up. Therefore I think there was an extra charge, possibly one of no plate being displayed, which again is an A, which is another £220 in this case. Thus the £440.

This thread must be fascinating for someone, I hope.

_________________
IDFIMH