Taxi Driver Online

Sheffield man fined £3,400 for trying to pass off car as taxi in Barnsley city centre

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/crime/sh ... xi-5002918

A Sheffield man was fined thousands after trying to ply his car as a taxi in Barnsley city centre.

Mohammed Sajjad Khan, of Bellhouse Road, was caught on Pell Street in Barnsley in on March 10, 2024, trying to ply his Skoda Octavia as a hackney carriage.

However, trying to earn cash by posing as a taxi driver without a licence falls foul of a nearly 200-year-old law - the Town Police Clauses Act 1847.

Khan, 32, did not attend Sheffield Magistrate’s Court on February 20 when he was found guilty, where it was also found he didn’t have insurance.

As a result, Khan was banned from driving for six months and handed a huge fine of over £3,800 - made up of £2,000 for posing as a taxi driver without a licence, £440 for driving without insurance, £976 in surcharges and £440 in court costs.

_________________
IDFIMH

wow one actually got caught !

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

Seems he was actually a PHD on suspension by Sheffield City Council


Taxi investigations yielding more results

https://www.barnsleychronicle.com/artic ... re-results

AN uninsured taxi driver who was caught plying for trade in the town centre has been ordered to pay more than £3,000 after Barnsley Council’s licensing enforcement team pursued a prosecution as part of a widespread crackdown to improve standards.

Mohammed Sajjad Khan had held a private hire driver’s licence with Sheffield City Council but it was suspended at the time of the offence last March.

Khan, of Bell House Road in Sheffield, ignored the suspension and continued to ply for trade, despite knowing he was uninsured to carry passengers as a result.

After failing to attend his court sentencing hearing last Thursday, he was sentenced in his absence.

He was ordered to pay a total of £3,416 which included a £2,000 fine, costs of £440 and a victim surcharge of £976.

Eight penalty points were put on Khan’s licence, leading to a six-month disqualification.

Coun Wendy Cain, cabinet spokesperson for public health and communities, said: “This is another great result for our regulatory and legal services teams, who do fantastic work in taking action against those who offer services illegally or without the proper licences.

“The safety of people who live in and visit our borough is a priority for us, and we’re committed to making sure that those who visit our town centre can enjoy a safe, enjoyable experience.

“Part of this means making sure that people have a safe journey to and from our town centre.

“Without the required licences, there is no assurance that a vehicle or driver is safe or suitable, which is why it’s important for us to take action against those who offer taxi services illegally.”

The result has been hailed as a step in the right direction by the licensing team, whose enforcement officers have continued to undertake regular checks on taxi drivers in the town centre since Khan was stopped.

Barnsley-based drivers have previously bemoaned rivals - some registered more than 100 miles away - for moving in on their long-held patches and have called for safety checks to be ramped up to protect livelihoods.

Coun Steve Green, who chairs the council’s licensing board, said it was a ‘concerning issue’ due to the amount of drivers - who obtained their licences elsewhere - plying for trade.

“We’ve found that a lot of drivers in Barnsley are registered elsewhere, such as Wolverhampton, where it’s easier to get a licence,” he added.

“As a local authority we have about 500 drivers registered with us, but in Wolverhampton there are in excess of 45,000 - that’s a staggering amount and it paints the picture of what we’re up against.

“We’re not satisfied how they are inspected and from what we’ve seen, the standards aren’t high.

“Customers have complained to us that the local knowledge just isn’t there, either, but we can’t enforce in the same way as we could if it was a Barnsley-registered taxi.”

Meanwhile, it's also reported that CCTV is set to become compulsory in Barnsley's HCs.

I'd guess that the reason it's HC-only is for the reasons implied in the latter part of the piece above - cross-bordering in general, and Wolverhampton in particular


CCTV to become compulsory in town's taxis

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpv44kn9ej8o

CCTV is expected to become mandatory in licensed taxis under new plans and approval for funding.

Barnsley Council has announced the policy for all hackney carriages operating in the town following public consultation.

However, there were only 26 responses from the public to the survey.

Councillor Wendy Cain, cabinet spokesperson for public health and communities, said the cameras would "enhance safety for both drivers and passengers".

"These changes also support our night-time economy by encouraging more drivers to work during later hours, so residents and visitors can enjoy Barnsley's nightlife with the confidence of a safe journey home," Cain said.

As part of the new policy, all hackney carriage vehicles must display prominent signs inside the vehicle to inform passengers that CCTV is in operation, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service.

The owner will be responsible for maintaining and servicing the CCTV system to ensure it is in good working condition.

The cameras will record footage inside the vehicle and will be operational whenever the vehicle is in use for hire.

The footage will be owned by the council, which will also act as the data controller for privacy purposes.

Shaun Jeffers, chairman of Barnsley's Hackney Carriage Association, called it "a good thing".

"It's something we've been pushing for, for a few years," he said.

The policy is expected to be approved at the next cabinet meeting on 5 March.

_________________
IDFIMH

Can't work out why hackney drivers and passengers need CCTV to protect them, but PH drivers and passengers don't.

_________________
IDFIMH