Taxi Driver Online

Why did these yobs get off?

A TAXI driver whose vehicle has been damaged twice in the past six months has criticised the "soft punishments" given out to the culprits.

Garry Wilson's six-seater cab sustained an estimated £500 in damage this month in Clinkham Wood after a late night argument between a group of teenage passengers he had picked up from Greenalls Social Club in Eccleston spilled out onto the street.

A 17-year-old vandal who kicked the minibus's rear door during the fracas was later arrested by police, but Garry has since been told the culprit will face only a £60 fixed penalty fine.

The infuriated cabbie, whose vehicle has been booted three times and bricked twice in the past seven months, now says reporting the crime to police was a waste of time.

The 39-year-old father-of-three, from Sutton, said: "I was told the lad had previous convictions and had made a full confession to causing the damage.

"I was told we would not be going to court as it was decided this offence was best dealt with by a fixed penalty of £60 and I would have to pursue any claim through a civil court.


"I'm left with a damaged cab and have been issued with a defect notice from St Helens Council to get this repaired within four weeks or face the possibility of coming off the road and losing my livelihood."

Garry's anger has been fuelled since he learned that police will also not take action against another offender who damaged his cab's other side panel in Rainhill, last October. On that occasion, a teenage passenger on his way to Rainhill asked to be taken to the Victoria pub so he could get money from friends to pay the fare.

Once they arrived at the pub, the passenger gave Garry a mobile phone as 'insurance' for the payment.

But minutes later the cabbie decided to drive away from the scene because he feared the boy's friends would turn up and demand the phone back without settling the fare.

As he drove the taxi away, the teenager kicked a traffic cone at the cab, causing damaging to its side panel.

Garry said that after speaking to police the phone was returned to the passenger, but he never received the £9.80 fare or compensation for the damage.

He added: "So I am now left with damage to both sides of my cab and the police made the decision that no one is going to pay for this."

I suppose a charge of "criminal damage" could have been brought against this person if the police were minded but at the end of the day it is up to the crown prosecution service to decide on whether or not to proceed, however if the person has admitted the offence then I can see no reason why he shouldn't be prosecuted? If the person had paid for the damage then a penalty fine might be OK but that was not the case in this instance.



Taking someone's personal possessions as security and then driving away was not the brightest thing to do, even if the driver thought he might be deprived of something that didn't belong to him. If he drove away with the intention of selling the phone as compensation of the fare then that would have been theft.

Would he have gone to the police station and handed in the phone if his vehicle had not been damaged, I doubt it. So what happens to the phone?

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

AT LEAST HE KNOWS WHERE HE LIVES

_________________
FORUMS ARE A GOOD PLACE TO LET OFF STEAM ! DONT TAKE LIFE TO SERIOUSLY ..

A fixed penalty is simply taking the pi**.

If he had been bought before the court then the driver would have been able to claim full compensation.

And it's worth remembering that compensation has to be paid before any fine or court costs.

_________________
IDFIMH

Of course, the problem in this regard with fixed penalty notices is that if they didn't exist then the offence in question wouldn't be punished at all.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

Indeed, I wonder if they can be used against runners? I think they can certainly be used against shoplifters.

If they could then it might mean that police officers would be more likely to take action rather than rely on the "civil matter" excuse.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

I think this comes down to what individual police forces see as priorities they all have their pet hates and their more bother than it's worth lists and often if the police are being very lenient it is because the order has come from the top to concentrate on one particular thing and deal with everything else as quickly as possible

I know for a fact that the government tends to add strings to police funding which means that crimes against business are low priority but vote winners like gun and knife crime are high priority