Taxi Driver Online
https://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

Tewkesbury PH op and driver prosecuted for lack of licences
https://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=39987		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  StuartW [ Mon Nov 20, 2023 8:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Tewkesbury PH op and driver prosecuted for lack of licences
This isn't very exciting, but spot the deliberate terminology mistake in the highlighted paragraph [-(

And, as is often the case with this kind of thing, a bit more detail on what actually happened would be interesting.

Instead, it's more about the usual municipal trumpet-blowing, and making it sound like some kind of international fraud as opposed to an unlicensed minicab :roll:


Spa-Tax Taxis guilty of operating vehicles without a licence

https://tewkesbury.gov.uk/spa-tax-taxis ... a-licence/

Tewkesbury Borough Council has successfully prosecuted two individuals for offences relating to licensing of private hire vehicles.

On Monday, 13 November, Victor Whitham, of Beaumont Drive, Cheltenham, Director of Spa-Tax Taxis, pleaded guilty to operating a private hire vehicle that was not licensed and for using an operator who did not have a private hire driver’s licence.

Mr Whitham was fined £500 and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £200. He was also ordered to pay £350 costs to the council.

On the same day, Hassan Isakhail, of Devon Avenue, Cheltenham, pleaded guilty to being the driver of the unlicensed vehicle, operating as a private hire driver without a licence, and driving without a valid policy of insurance.

Mr Isakhail was fined £733, ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £293 and given eight penalty points. He was also ordered to pay £250 costs to the council.

Tewkesbury Borough Council’s Lead Member for Clean and Green Environment, Councillor Sarah Hands, said “In the interests of public safety, it is vital that all private hire vehicles and drivers are licensed.

“Our licensing team carries out checks to ensure that all licence holders are safe and suitable to conduct private hire work – and without these checks public safety would be jeopardised.”

The prosecution was brought following a complaint from a member of the public. Tewkesbury Borough Council’s Licensing team worked on the prosecution with assistance from both the council’s Counter Fraud and Enforcement Unit and One Legal, a legal service shared by Cheltenham Borough Council, Gloucester City Council, Stroud District Council and Tewkesbury Borough Council.

Anyone can report their concerns regarding unlicensed taxis or private hire vehicles online by visiting tewkesbury.gov.uk/taxi-and-private-hire-licensing
Author:  Sussex [ Mon Nov 20, 2023 9:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tewkesbury PH op and driver prosecuted for lack of licen
Suspect it was some kind of sting, or they picked up someone in authority or someone who knew the score in respect of licensing.

The sad thing is the driver, who I suspect was the lesser of two evils and possibly didn't know he was doing anything wrong, got the higher fine and 8 points on his license.

Whereas the fella who did know what he was doing was wrong got off lightly in my view.
Author:  StuartW [ Tue Feb 06, 2024 6:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Tewkesbury PH op and driver prosecuted for lack of licen
A few weeks ago, Tewkesbury Council wrote:
On the same day, Hassan Isakhail, of Devon Avenue, Cheltenham, pleaded guilty to being the driver of the unlicensed vehicle, operating as a private hire driver without a licence, and driving without a valid policy of insurance.

Mr Isakhail was fined £733, ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £293 and given eight penalty points. He was also ordered to pay £250 costs to the council.

More recently, Tewkesbury Council wrote:
On the same day, Mr Iqbal Moolla of Hatfield Road, Gloucester, pleaded guilty to being the driver of the vehicle, operating as a private hire driver without a licence.

Mr Moolla was fined £65 and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £26. He was also ordered to pay £500 costs to the council.

Quite a difference in the financial penalties there, and no mention of points on the latest driver's licence either :-o

But does this mean the latest driver wasn't done for not having insurance? Wonder why?

(The operators' penalties between the two cases are also quite significant, but not as far apart as the two drivers'.)
Author:  edders23 [ Tue Feb 06, 2024 9:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Tewkesbury PH op and driver prosecuted for lack of licen
Sorry Stuart but I disagree the driver must surely have known he wasn't legal but was willing to chance it assuming getting caught was unlikely
Author:  StuartW [ Tue Feb 06, 2024 10:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Tewkesbury PH op and driver prosecuted for lack of licen
Edders, to clarify, I wasn't really saying anything about the stringency or otherwise of the penalties other than to say that, for the two drivers at least, there was a huge gulf between them - ignoring the costs, approximately £90 levied in one case, while around £1,000 in the other case, plus eight points on his licence :-o

In fact, if I was saying anything about the stringency or otherwise of the penalties, I was saying that the first driver got off very lightly.

But, presumably a huge reason for the difference in financial penalties is that although both were prosecuted for being unbadged drivers, in one case the car was plated, while in the other the car wasn't plated.

Which presumably also explains the no insurance charge in the case of the unplated vehicle. But if the driver is unbadged, doesn't that mean that even if the vehicle is plated, it's actually uninsured as well, because the policy would be invalid because the driver doesn't have a badge? :-k
Author:  Sussex [ Tue Feb 06, 2024 8:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Tewkesbury PH op and driver prosecuted for lack of licen
Quote:
But does this mean the latest driver wasn't done for not having insurance? Wonder why?

There is a defence of 'special reasons', one of them being;

The extent to which you believed you had insurance may amount to a Special Reasons argument. A genuine and honest misapprehension that you were insured to drive may amount to a Special Reason if the belief is based on reasonable grounds. (Rennison v Knowler 1947). Assuming that your policy had auto-renewed, for example, would not suffice, but relying upon another person to arrange the policy, when it was reasonable for you to rely upon them, and being misled into believing cover was in place, could result in Special Reasons being found.
Author:  StuartW [ Wed Feb 07, 2024 2:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Tewkesbury PH op and driver prosecuted for lack of licen
Ah, yes, Sussex - that was the defence Mr Sudbury relied on when he was charged for not having insurance when the proprietor had secured a policy fraudulently...
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/