The other side to one of those pieces where unbadged/unplated drivers are hauled before the courts, but there's no word of what happened to the operator.
But in this case it's about the operator, and not clear whether the driver was prosecuted etc.
And, as regards the usual question about whether the operator should have known, in this case the council had effectively told him that the badge was soon to expire
Got off pretty lightly, though, I would say. Particularly as I'm sure Sussex will have something to say about his non-appearance...
And, of course, as per usual the word 'employ' here won't be used in the employment status sense of being an employee rather than self-employed.
Boss of private hire company fined for employing driver with no taxi licencehttps://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/pe ... ce-8642139A boss of a private hire company claimed he employed a driver with no taxi licence due to a “software issue.”Imran Khan was due to appear at Bradford Magistrates Court on Friday to answer a charge of employing an unlicensed taxi driver.
He failed to appear, and the case was heard in his absence.
Magistrates were told that Khan, 43, of Midland Street, Skipton, was the boss of Aireside Private Hire.
Late last year Bradford Council discovered that the taxi licence of one of Khan’s drivers had expired – but he continued to work as a driver for several weeks.
Khalid Bashir’s licence had not been renewed after Council officers found an undisclosed offence on his records.
Imran Hussain, prosecuting on behalf of Bradford Council, said: “While doing a check as part of the renewal process, officers noticed an offence from January 2023 that had not been declared by Mr Bashir.”
The renewal was halted because of this undisclosed offence – meaning Mr Bashir had no taxi licence at that point in time.
Mr Hussain said: “An investigation found that Mr Bashir carried on operating as a private hire driver, even though he had no licence to do so.
“That led to an investigation into the operator, who was asked to give reasons as to why they allowed a driver to work for them despite his licence having expired.”
Khan was the operator of the company.
Mr Hussain said: “He told officers that a mistake had occurred – at the time Aireside Private Hire was undergoing a software update, and this was the reason the expired licence hadn’t been picked up.”
He told magistrates that there was some “difficulty” with this explanation, as Khan had been made aware that Mr Bashir’s licence was soon to expire.
Mr Hussain said: “The taxi company were already aware of this – despite this software explanation. The defendant still knew and still had a responsibility to ensure the licence had been updated.”
The court was told that Mr Bashir was working without a licence from October 7 to November 9.
Magistrates found Khan guilty in his absence, fining him £220, and ordering him to pay a court surcharge of £88.
He will also have to pay the full costs that Bradford Council incurred bringing the case to court – £600.
It means in total Khan was ordered to pay £908.
Login
Register
FAQ
