Taxi Driver Online

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 licence

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/pe ... ce-8642139

A 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.

Presumably not charged at commercial rates, then

And, of course, no word about what's happened or happening about his licence.

Given that he now has a criminal conviction, one would assume action will follow.

Especially if he doesn't pay the council's costs.

_________________
IDFIMH

Clearly, the fairies didn't turn up to represent him.

_________________
IDFIMH

So this is what happened to the driver - it would take some time to wade through some of the detail of this

But, in particular, it's maybe worth recalling from the above article that the 'employer' (operator) had been informed by the council that the driver's badge here was about to expire - that's certainly not obvious reading this below

And, again, presumably words like 'employ' and 'employer' here are incorrect, strictly speaking - I'd guess he was a standard rental or commission driver driving an office car...

But, I mean, absolute discharge, eh?


Private hire driver carried out 205 jobs without valid licence or insurance

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/cr ... ce-9112216

A private hire driver from Bradford carried out over 200 jobs without a valid licence or insurance – a court has heard.

Khalid Bashir said a lack of understanding of English meant he did not realise that he was not allowed to work while Bradford Council was still processing his taxi licence renewal.

Because of this he transported passengers for his employer, Keighley based Aireside Private Hire, for a month while he did not have a valid licence.

The lack of a licence meant he also did not have correct insurance

He has since lost his licence, but on Friday Magistrates gave him the benefit of the doubt and decided to impose no further punishment,

He told the court that during the period he did not have a valid licence his employers still provided him with a vehicle, and allowed him to carry out jobs.

Between October 8 and November 8 Bashir, of Dalton Terrace, Keighley, carried out 205 jobs – making over £1,300 in payments, while he was uninsured and without a licence.

He appeared at Bradford Magistrates Court on Friday charged with driving a private hire vehicle without a licence, and driving without proper insurance.

He admitted both charges, but argued that “special reasons” meant he should not face any further punishment.

Imran Hussain, prosecuting on behalf of Bradford Council, told the court that Bashir’s licence was due for renewal on October 7 2025.

Bashir had applied for it to be renewed – but the Council’s licensing department discovers an undisclosed report that he had committed a mobile phone offence while driving in 2023.

This meant the licence renewal process was put on hold.

But despite not receiving any paperwork to say his licence had been renewed, Bashir carried on driving.

Speaking through an interpreter, Bashir claimed he struggled to read official paperwork in English.

He said he often would ask his wife, cousin or colleagues to read the paperwork and let him know what he needed to do.

He told the court that once applying for his licence renewal “I was under the assumption I was able to drive. I had no other communication from the Council.”

Ibrar Hussain, defending, asked about his employers, adding: “Did the company continue to provide you with a vehicle to drive in this period?”

Bashir replied: “Yes.”

Mr Hussain said: “Did anyone at the company tell you you weren’t entitled to drive in this period?”

Bashir replied: “No.”

After a deliberation, Magistrates agreed that there were special circumstances – that the crime was due to a misunderstanding rather than any attempt to break the law.

They gave Bashir an absolute discharge.

In May Imran Khan, the boss of Aireside Private Hire, was found guilty of employing a driver without a proper licence.

He was fined £220, ordered to pay a court surcharge of £88 and Council costs of £600.

Not sure if that's a spelling or grammar error there, or whether it's just one of those instances used in informal scenarios when the present tense is used when it should be the past tense - like a football pundit during the Match of the Day highlights saying 'he's in the box and he's got an open goal in front of him', when it strictly it should be 'he was in the box' blah, blah. Or something like that

So it's not that it's that unusual in the real world, but can't recall it ever being used like his in a press report in this way.

And while it's stated that he lost his badge, I don't think either of the two reports state precisely what happened to the operator's licence, if anything

Isn't driving without insurance an absolute offence - ie, even if done accidentally and without knowledge (like speeding) then it's still deemed to have been committed, irrespective of lack of any intent?

Anyway, presumably this means that a driver with reasonable English would have been more likely to have been found quilty, even if he wasn't aware of the offence either?

Maybe he would also be deemed to have committed the offence without intent, but it certainly doesn't sound like that from the piece as a whole

don't forget Stuart that courts often "allow" for ignorance from people whose first language is not English.

he obviously didn't understand

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

Yes and No.

It's an absolute offence, but courts can issue no penalty.

A common example is an employed lorry or van driver whose employer doesn't pay the insurance premium in time, or at all.

I think we had something like that on TDO a few years back, where a driver renting a taxi got done when the owner didn't pay the insurance or something like that.

This link gives a better overview.

https://www.caineslaw.co.uk/services/dr ... insurance/

_________________
IDFIMH

As for the broad thrust of the situation, I think the court took the view that the driver has lost his job, he has also lost his license, and given the evidence presented to them in court that he didn't understand what was happening, and the operator didn't offer him any advice despite him driving the operator's car, they decided he has suffered enough.

TBH, I can't really argue against that.

However, the cynic in me thinks the court was told a load of old boll***s.

_________________
IDFIMH