Taxi Driver Online

Where to start with this?

Looks like quite a straightforward case of a car with a failed MoT being used on a school run, and the council giving the owner penalty points.

But the headline and first paragraph at least seem a tad misleading.

And it's not clear whether it was ever a plated vehicle, or whatever.

And he says he's appealing to the magistrate's court, so there must be more to his punishment than just 12 points, or whatever, but that's not clear either.

I'd guess he's either been suspended or revoked, but that's not actually stated.

What does seem clear, however, is that the owner and HCA rep are just bull$hitting. The car failed an MoT but was then used on a school run. Ends.


Carlisle Taxi driver could lose licence after failing MOT

https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/2408 ... iling-mot/

A BULB, which was out of alignment, was enough to land a Carlisle taxi driver 12 penalty points by Cumberland Council.

Andy Kidd appealed against the decision at a meeting of the council's regulatory sub-committee at the Civic Centre in Carlisle on Monday.

Mr Kidd, who is a licensed Hackney Carriage driver, private hire driver, private hire operator and vehicle owner, received the points for having a unlicensed vehicle or using a licenced vehicle without insurance or without a valid periodical vehicle test.

Amanda Bailey, a licensing officer at the council, told members that the vehicle in question had no valid MOT and it had been used by a driver for a school contract on November 2.

She said that, as the owner of the vehicle, it was Mr Kidd's responsibility to ensure the MOT was up to date and he admitted that it was "human error" and he now has a "robust system in place" to make sure such an error did not happen again.

Christopher Bray, who is the secretary of the Hackney Carriage and private hire association, was acting on behalf of Mr Kidd and said they were "surprised" at the time that the test was not in place and added: "He and his business partner run a very good business."

Mr Kidd said: "I've run cars for a long and I just find it hard to believe I've got maximum points when I tried my best."

He said that the reason the car failed the test was because a bulb was out of alignment and in the past it would have been normal practice for the mechanic to just put it back into the correct alignment.

Ms Bailey told members that Mr Kidd was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the offence and the other driver was not aware of the defect. She added: "The responsibility was with the owner."

After a short period of deliberation members decided that the appeal was not upheld.

Speaking after the ruling Mr Kidd said that he was planning to appeal against the decision and the hearing would be at the city's magistrate’s court.

If he or the vehicle hasn't been banned or suspended then it's not down to the Mags court to address, it's down to the King's Bench for Judicial Review, and good luck with that bugger.

_________________
IDFIMH

12 points for a misaligned bulb seems harsh if the 12 points means revocation of license and I thought revocation could be challenged in the magistrates court

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

Edders, I thought my thread title was reasonably clear, if a bit stilted and clunky.

And I posted over 100 words of comment. And the article is nearly 400 words long.

Yet you seem to have only read the misleading press headline and opening paragraph

But another couple of paragraphs in the report outlines all anyone really needs to know about what the points were all about:

Ok you misunderstood my point which was that he was facing a licence revocation due to the car being failed on it's MOT for what is arguably not a safety critical matter. The committee could have used some discretion bearing in mind there was no deliberate intention.

Although the article has not clearly stated this it appears a license revocation has occurred which is challengeable in a magistrates court

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

Edders, it wasn't about failing the MoT per se, it was because the car was used as for conveying passengers while without a valid MoT

Had a look for the agenda papers (don't think minutes are up yet), and the vehicle failed its MoT and was only passed about six weeks later. In the interim, it had covered almost 4,000 miles, during which time it did school runs and other taxi work

He was given 12 points for all that, and that was it! The letter from the LO makes it clear that he was just given points as per the council's clearly stated policy. And that was the only punishment unless he did something else wrong in the next 24 months.

Got off pretty lightly, I would say - he didn't even have to appear before the committee.

But he appealed to the committee, but they obviously concluded that the 12 points should stay on his record. But that was it, and there was never any suggestion he would be suspended or revoked. Which, to be fair to the journalist, is probably why the article appears a bit misleading. It sounds like he'd been suspended or revoked, but all he was actually doing was appealing the 12 points.

Therefore, as Sussex suggested, there was never any suspension or revocation, thus he can't appeal to the magistrates' court, and his only option is judicial review, or whatever. Which won't be happening

So, to sum up, he got the 12 points for using a car with a failed MoT for several weeks - thus got off lightly - and then made an utter meal of it by appealing to the committee, and now threatening a further appeal using a process that simply doesn't exist

I suspect we'll hear no more about it...

https://cumberland.moderngov.co.uk/ieLi ... 4&MId=4055

Papers on link above, near the bottom of the page - first document is just a slightly odd copy of all his badges and plates, so curiosity value only.

Second and third documents are about the council's points policy.

This is the one to read below - the letter from the LO outlining the circumstances about the failed MoT etc, and making it clear that the only punishment was the 12 points, but that he could appeal that to the committee.

https://cumberland.moderngov.co.uk/docu ... dacted.pdf

This is the car's MoT history, which confirms the dates and mileages. Funny thing is that on the pass date it seemed to fail again, then it was passed on the same day and on same mileage

But the initial failure, the six week gap until the retest, and the mileage inbetween are clear enough.

https://www.check-mot.service.gov.uk/re ... calls=true