Taxi Driver Online

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Carlisle taxi driver reported over his 'illegal' act of kindness

https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/2540 ... -kindness/

THE father of an autistic student provided a moving character reference for a taxi driver whose act of kindness landed him trouble with Cumberland Council.

The man sat beside 75-year-old Barry Haden in court to support him after the pensioner admitted using his own car to transport the student to college in Carlisle because his taxi was off the road.

Haden did not charge the family.

Despite his kindness, Haden’s decision to use his Honda car on five occasions meant he was in breach of licensing rules because it was not appropriately licensed by the Council for use as a private hire vehicle.

That was the case even though the pensioner did not charge the family, prosecutor Jonathan Farnworth told Carlisle’s Rickergate court.

The lawyer explained that all taxi operators must have an appropriate Council licence for both themselves as driver and for their vehicles as taxis. These are in place to ensure legal safeguards and standards are met.

“This case relates to occasions when Mr Haden was using his own private vehicle to fulfil a private hire contract,” said Mr Farnworth.

The background was that Haden had been transporting the young man – who has complex learning needs that include autism – for some time. After leaving James Rennie School in Carlisle, the student began studying at college.

“Initially, the student’s family had an arrangement with another taxi firm but, unfortunately, they decided to put the price up a lot for those journeys, so the family approached Mr Haden to ask if he could do the journeys for the amount the Council pays the family, allowing this young man to go to and from college.

“He agreed and began transporting him.”

But in January, the defendant’s private hire vehicle developed an electrical fault, prompting him to contact another taxi driver.

That driver could cover some of the journeys, between the student's Wigton home and college, but not all of them.

There were five occasions when Haden, unable to use his licensed taxi, used his private car to transport the student to and from college. Council officials learned about this following a “tip off” from one of Haden’s competitors.

Haden had not charged for those journeys and had simply wanted not to let down the family and the student, with whom had had a good relationship.

A man with no previous convictions, he had fully admitted what he did. “He should have told the family that he could not transport this young man because his vehicle wasn’t available,” added Mr Farnworth.

The student’s father told magistrates that his son did not like to be transported by any other driver and that, even after a close bereavement, Haden had insisted on taking his son to college.

“That shows the quality of the man you have here,” said the father. He added that it would be devastating for his son if Haden could not continue to transport him to college.

Magistrates imposed a three-month conditional discharge, which means Haden, of Cant Crescent, will not be punished provided he stays out of trouble while the order is in force.

He must pay costs of £74 and a surcharge of £26.

_________________
IDFIMH

Lots of detail in the piece, but I don't think it gets to the crux of the legal issue - I recall a similar previous airport transfer case a few years ago, and it's all about the trip being undertaken with a 'view to profit', so even a free run has to be licensed.

It's a bit like a pub or club offering free runs home - although they're not charging, it's all part of a wider business-oriented thing, as opposed to some random member of the public giving someone a lift in their car

So because the driver here was normally charging the passenger in a properly licensed PHV, it's all seen as part of pattern of business behaviour, basically, so he needed to be licensed.

But, as per what Sussex said the other day about the assistance dog prosecution, this is another waste of time which could have been dealt with in terms of the licensing function per se.

And I'd guess that, looking at the sentence - a three month conditional discharge - the magistrates thought similarly

And, I mean, costs of £74 and surcharge of £26?

Of course, it will be interesting to know how he's dealt with in terms of licensing - maybe the council will see it as their duty to 'punish' him severely, because I'd guess they might view the result of the case - a slapped wrist in criminal law terms, essentially - as a bit of a public humiliation

Some of the comments are pretty predictable...not much support for the council, and these two give a flavour of the whole...

This is quite interesting, and is a toing and froing between a pair of commenters

No prizes for suggesting that one of them might be a trade competitor, or even the one who called the council

No point wading through all this, but I suspect many an experienced taxi driver would genuinely think they're doing nothing wrong - and in fact doing the right thing - by using their own motor to do a free run, irrespective of the legal niceties

But the critic here obviously thinks the driver wouldn't have done the run for £0, but at the very least he should proffer evidence of that, because the court obviously accepted that there was £zero charge

(Although if it was a run from Wigton to Penrith (as claimed below), and back again, then that's 22 miles loaded for each trip, so if he was travelling there and back twice a day then that would be nearly 90 miles covered in total - thus certainly quite generous, so to that extent there's an understandable cynicism from the person below )

I wonder if the council might also take his age into consideration. I know some carry on longer but he's pretty old for a driver

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

Is the correct answer.

Personally, I think the fella was charging, but I'm not always right.

If the above is incorrect, then it raises the question of why he didn't get another taxi/PH to cover the job.

_________________
IDFIMH

“Obtaining a pecuniary advantage” is the phrase I believe

Yes, I'd guess 'obtaining pecuniary advantage' is effectively identical to 'with a view to profit', X-ray.

But it does beg the question as to what 'pecuniary advantage' he was benefiting from.

He says ( ) he was just helping out someone in need, for nothing. He could have, maybe he should have, passed the job to someone else, but by doing the job for nothing, he gains nothing in the long term.

Unless a view is that he could have lost the work when his car was back on the road, but to me, that doesn't make sense.

_________________
IDFIMH

I'd guess that's about it - either he says he can't do the job, and the customer gets someone else, and stays with the alternative.

Or, he gets someone else to do the job, and they end up retaining the contract

And that's assuming he can get anyone else to do it in the first place, which is maybe quite a big if for a job of that length at times when others no doubt busy as well...

So in essence quite a technical thing, and I think most would agree that it's a tad OTT to prosecute in the first place.

But a certain someone on here has been making some very technical arguments on here lately concerning legal minutiae (which I would have disputed, but probably no point disputing hyper-detailed and technical stuff like that ).

But whole case arguably symptomatic of this whole so-called anarcho-tyranny thing that's occcassionally mentioned in the context of stuff like two-tier policing etc

And which, in the context purely of trade regulation, maybe means the likes of the council above, and others like Reading and South Oxon on the one hand (the tyranny) and the likes of Wolves on the other hand (the anarchy ).

There's been several cases mentioned on there over the years, the "pink ladies" case in the Dunstable area IIRC, Rout-v-Swallow Hotel was the case for a restaurant supplying free minibuses and coaches for client, no psv driver or licences, and odd cases like the one above where the mrs has used her car when hubby's ph car was off the road, it was deemed the operator had the pecuniary advantage mentioned above. And about 16 years ago when I was a Shepway ph driver, the chap up the road who got medically retired following a heart attack or similar, and carried on operating long after he sent his licences back, he got caught in a police sting. Agreed it should never had gone to court but what other laws should be broken?

This is a recent prosecution over a freebie trip in an unlicensed car. A regular school run, but he didn't charge for it when his PHV was off the road

But, as I said at the time, the report doesn't really get to the crux of the issue nor explain it properly - it just says he was prosecuted for using an unlicensed car to do a school run he wasn't charging for.

But presumably the crux of the matter was that it was done 'with a view to profit' in the context of the contract as a whole