Taxi Driver Online

Taxi bans guide dog

DISABILITY campaigners have expressed outrage after a mini cab driver refused to take a blind passenger's fare - because of his guide dog.

Alan McLoughlin, from Hollin, says he was told he could not get into the private hire vehicle with his dog Dolly - a move which flouts recent disability laws designed to eradicate such discrimination.

Mr McLoughlin, who lost his sight four years ago, booked the car from Crown Taxis, based on Windermere Road, Langley to take him to the home of Middleton Cricket Club, Towncroft, last Saturday. He informed the operator he had a guide dog.

But when the taxi arrived at his Buckfast Road home, he claims the driver said he could not take the dog and would send another car. He then waited 40 minutes before booking again with another firm.

Mr McLoughlin branded his treatment disgraceful. He said: "It's like saying to someone who uses a wheelchair you won't take the chair. They need that for their mobility and I need Dolly for mine."

"They're not allowed to refuse to take me but they still keep trying it. I've also been charged £2 extra to take Dolly which is completely unfair. Eventually I got that back but friends of mine keep encountering similar problems.

"It gets you really wound up."

The claim is being investigated by Rochdale Council but Kham Shafaq, owner of Crown Taxis, told the Guardian their records did not show a car having gone to pick up Mr McLoughlin, only that his booking was cancelled.

Mr Shafaq said: "Our drivers are all self-employed. We have told Rochdale Council that if anyone refuses a guide dog we will give them all their details and they can take away their badge.

"We pick up Mr McLoughlin regularly and have picked him up since so I can't understand the complaint. However, if any of my customers have a problem I am happy for them to come to me directly and I will sort it out."

If the taxi driver is found to have broken the Disability Discrimination Act he could lose his licence and face a fine of up to £1,000.

A spokesman for the Royal National Institute of the Blind told the Guardian such actions were "blatant discrimination which should not be happening."

He said: "The only exception to the law is if drivers have a medical exemption certificate for a clinical allergy to dogs and they should already have this displayed in the vehicle.

"Our message to drivers and local authorities would be to stop it and stop it now. It is totally wrong and it's breaking the law."

Adrian Watson, chief environmental health and licensing officer at Rochdale Council, said: "Taxis and private hire cars must carry working dogs such as guide dogs.

"On the rare occasions when they refuse to do so, the council takes action. In this case, we are already investigating and will be taking the necessary action to ensure that drivers comply with the terms of their licence."

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Now that's interesting, If the gentleman is totally blind he has no way of knowing which firm, or which driver and which vehicle refused to carry his dog? Because obviously he can't see? If the driver who refused him had a quiet word in the controllers ear or even the bosses ear and said "hey boss, you never sent me on that job because the person concerned might inform the council that I refused to pick him up" and that would land both of us in the Chit?

I suppose there might be some firms who may exploit this situation and use the same excuse that Crown cars used in Rochdale, we never sent a car, therefore it must have been someone else? lol. Crown Cars are predominantly Asian drivers as is practically every other firm in Rochdale including the hackneys so it may have been a case this driver not liking Dogs because of his religion? However considering Crown cars never sent a driver then I suppose we will never know?

Collusion, conspiracy to pervert the course of Justice, Falsification of job sheets, whatever it amounts to, I would watch this space?

Regards

JD

I agree with all that you have said,and would also add the following:

Does this come under soiling the car in which case there is a soiling charge. Not wishing to be seen as being crude, But! who is responsible for any mess dragged in on the rear end of the animal concerned. I am all for helping anyone who is disabled, but why should we pick up the bill.

_________________
if you cannot be yourself, then who can you be.

JD. how about if he said. I did not refuse to carry the dog, I refuse to carry the passenger, The reason I refuse to carry him was that he had dog SH*T over his shoes.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

Every guide dog I have picked up sits in the footwell and was very well behaved, guide dogs are trained to go in cars and behave, which is more than can be said for some passengers!.

_________________
stressed controller!!!

I like dogs, and have always owned at least one until recently, and I would never refuse to carry one , but I must admit to having met people who were terrified of them.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

Guide dogs are very well trained and would not jump on to the seat but always sit on the floor usually in the front, they leave less mess than some of the kebab eating morons and they dont answer you back.

lol very good!

If this guy was a regular surely these drivers knew what they were doing when the operator offered the job?

They must all be rich in Rochdale?

Regards

JD

or cowboys

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

But the law is the law, roadrunner.

Can you post in black, like the rest of us, please, that blue is hard on the eye.

_________________
Former taxi driver

100% agree.

We have lots of Blind customers with guide dogs, although it can cause a problem if it's wet, every driver know the law.

I dare say there are acceptable reasons for banning a blind person from using your firm. For instance, if the person is "abusive towards drivers". I would think that is a legitimate reason for an operator to say, "use another firm".

In this particular case I believe all might not be as black and white as was reported? We shall see?

Regards

JD

There are legitimate reasons, such as what JD has pointed out, most of this is covered on the DRC website.

regards

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin