Taxi Driver Online

At least they've managed to avoid the f-word ('fine') for, er, payments incurred which aren't actually fines

But spot the almighty clanger in the headline

Interesting charge as regards the driver, though - he was a licensed PHD, but the charge is on the vehicle owner, thus 'causing another to drive without insurance'.

So presumably no charges against the driver. But, I mean, surely he should be deemed to know he was driving an unlicensed vehicle?


Private Hire operator fined after advertising uninsured airport taxi transfers on Facebook

• Unlicensed airport transfers promoted on Facebook without a private hire operator’s licence
• Driver was licensed, but the vehicle was uninsured and not authorised for private hire
• Ordered to pay £1,418, including penalties, victim surcharge, and prosecution costs

https://media.reading.gov.uk/news/priva ... n-facebook

AN UNLICENSED PRIVATE HIRE operator has been ordered to pay more than £1,400 after he was found to be running an illegal airport transfer service in Reading.

In September 2024, Reading Council Licensing officers were made aware of a post on Facebook for ‘easy airport transfers from Reading’, by an account in the name of Samuel Szymczyk, offering chauffeur-driven rides to all major London airports, which he had posted on the site across multiple local Facebook groups.

Suspicions were raised as, upon further investigation, there was no record of Mr Szymczyk being licensed by the Council to run a Private Hire business.

An officer, acting in the capacity of a member of the public, booked a journey with Mr Szymczyk from The Penta Hotel, Reading, to Gatwick Airport on 14 January 2025, for a pre-agreed price of £75.

On the day of the booking, the driver that Mr Szymczyk had arranged to carry out the contracted journey arrived at the pick-up point. They did hold a Private Hire Driver's Licence. The vehicle was not licensed for private hire work and had no insurance for private hire work.

At Reading Magistrates' court on 8 August 2025, Mr Szymczyk admitted offences of operating a private hire vehicle without an operator’s licence and causing the use of an uninsured motor vehicle.

For operating a private hire vehicle without a private hire operator’s licence, magistrates imposed a fine of £400. For causing a vehicle to be driven without insurance, he was fined £120 and was handed six penalty points on his driving licence.

He was also required to pay a victim surcharge of £208, as well as a contribution towards the prosecution costs of £690, bringing the total he was ordered to pay to £1,418.

Mr Szymczyk pleaded guilty and was convicted of:

• Causing another to use a motor vehicle without insurance, contrary to Section 143(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

• Operating a private hire vehicle without a private hire operator's licence, contrary to Section 46(1)(e) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

Cllr John Ennis, Lead Councillor for Climate Strategy and Transport, said:

“This result secured by our Licensing service sends a clear message: the serious risks posed by unlicensed transport services and the deliberate deception used to promote them will not be tolerated in Reading.

"Unscrupulous traders are taking advantage of the busy summer travel season, when more people are trying to get to the airport cheaply. However, if you inadvertently choose an unlicensed driver, there is no way of knowing their driving record, whether they are insured, and, if something were to go wrong, your holiday could be ruined before it's even started.

"Unlicensed drivers are also able to undercut legitimate businesses, which work hard and within the rules, which are there to give residents peace of mind that their driver has been vetted and they have all the correct insurance and documents.

“The promotion of an unlicensed and therefore uninsured service online, such as this, misleads the public and puts passengers at serious risk. We’re committed to ensuring that all private hire operators in Reading meet the legal standards designed to protect customers, and we will continue to take firm action against those who choose to disregard the rules.”

Anyone with concerns about taxi or Private Hire drivers can report them confidentially to licensing@reading.gov.uk or by calling the Council Contact Centre on 0118 937 3787.

I forgot to include the link to the source earlier - which is just to make it clear that the inaccurate headline is the council's, and not the press's

We have a few doing this around here and I would imagine that the same thing goes on in most places. How is it that Reading can act in the way in which they have but my Council say that they can't do anything similar because of RIPA?

"We, as a licensing team cannot do ourselves, nor encourage others, to go looking on Facebook or similar platforms to try to ‘catch people out’. We have spoken to our legal team and a RIPA would be required and this is not practical in these circumstances."

But he didn't do anything unlawful.

If he had picked up the fella, then clearly that would be, but he didn't.

_________________
IDFIMH

Because your council can't be arsed.

I would send them the article and ask them the question you posed above.

_________________
IDFIMH

Can't be arsed about covers it.

There was a similar debate about test-purchasing for shops selling alcohol to under-18s. The Surveillance Commissioner even put out guidance that RIPA was irrelevant for most test-purchases.

That was the response I got when I sent them the article. I have sent them so many articles from different Councils accross the Country where similar thing have been done and this is the stock reply I get every time. I have sugested that I go out and get the telephone numbers for the people doing it and make some bookings but they have "advised" me not to do so. So basically they don't want people to get them the information and they can't get the information themselves so what is the point of even being licensed. This is the approach that several local drivers have taken and they have not renewed their licenses but have carried on working regardless.

Sussex, isn't driving without insurance a strict liability offence, sort of thing? So if the vehicle owner 'caused another to use a motor vehicle without insurance' then presumably that other (the driver here) was guilty of driving without insurance?

And what offence in licensing terms, precisely, would the driver have committed by picking up the passenger that he wasn't committing unless he actually had the punter in the vehicle?

In 99.9% of the time, yes, but who's sayng the driver wasn't insured to drive that car. It may not have been licensed, but the driver didn't do anything unlawful, IMO, as the council official never got in.

Now the driver might have well known what was going on, and he might well have known that the vehicle wasn't licensed to undertake private hire work, but until the official got in the car, no offence was committed by him.

Yes, the operator bang to rights, but not the driver IMO.


Unlawful hiring, as opposed to unlawful booking.

If a PH driver sitting in a PH vehicle on the road is approached by someone and agrees to take them somewhere, that is evidence of plying for hire. If the customer then gets into the car and the driver drives off, then that is evidence of unlicensed hiring.

_________________
IDFIMH