|
Taxi examiner 'doctored' Knowledge of London results and 'asked candidates same questions'
A former London taxi driver examiner has had his claim of unfair dismissal dismissed by officials after he 'doctored' candidates' Knowledge of London (KoL) test scores after they were consistently above the average of his fellow testers' marks. Aspiring Transport for London (TfL) cabbies need to pass multiple rounds of testing before they are allowed to take fares on the city's roads.
In March 2018, Mr J. Harvey's manager, Katie Chennells, raised with him that the scores he was awarding were 'noticeably higher' than his colleagues'. A Tribunal states that they were at a yearly average of 85 per cent in 2017, 85 per cent in January 2018 and 80 per cent in February 2018. Ms Chennells then suggested that the claimant could be 'inflating his scores' by repeating the questions he was asking cab driver candidates so that they could 'rehearse his questions and give perfect answers'.
Ms Chennells claimed that Mr Harvey agreed to 'keep an eye on' using repeat questions. In his evidence, the claimant stated that all examiners asked repeat and 'banker' questions.
But, having reviewed 32 appearances that Mr Harvey conducted on October 23, 24 and 25 and November 6 and 7, 2018, Ms Chennells found that his scores still ranged between 83 and 100 per cent - an average of 91 per cent. In 2019, documents state that the claimant’s average yearly score was 78 per cent.
The department’s average was 51 per cent. Then, in 2020 the Mr Harvey's scores 'crept up slightly' to an average of 82 per cent. This was compared to the department average of 54 per cent.
A year later, the claimant’s average scores reached 92 per cent, contrasted with the department average of 60 per cent. Papers state that Ms Chennells again asked Mr Harvey to not repeat questions and that he should not prompt candidates to repeat their answers as that indicated their first attempt was wrong.
The Tribunal said that it accepted that examiner rules allow candidates to go back on a route and correct errors without being penalised, but 'it is implied that is because of their own initiative and not the examiners'. By the end of May 2022, Mr Harvey's scoring average was 90 per cent.
A disciplinary process was begun later that year. The claimant defended himself, arguing that he had been attempting to deliver a 'modern KoL', and that he 'penalises hesitation fairly in relation to which stage each candidate is on'. Mr Harvey added that he was 'open to reward candidates for more than one valid route from A to B' and suggested that this approach 'isn’t necessarily carried out by all examiners'.
He also underlined that 'no formal training has ever taken place', so he is 'self-taught'. In addition, Mr Harvey stressed that he considers his 'style' of examination to be 'relevant to driving a taxi in 2022', and that 'no regular auditing takes place' and appearances are 'not recorded for quality control and review'. He 'strongly disagreed' that 'statistics alone' should determine how an exam is delivered and the tribunal heard he'd be willing to 'fall on his sword'.
Mr Harvey resigned in March 2023. Ms Chennells claimed that he was 'not a reliable witness' and was 'prone to exaggeration and re-writing of history to suit his own narrative'.
The claimant argued that KoL examiner guidelines are 'imprecise' and to achieve greater consistency as the respondent wanted, officials should have revised the guidelines and made some changes to the format of the examination itself. As an examiner Mr Harvey claimed he was 'presentable and amenable', and his demeanour 'enabled candidates to perform well'.
Employment Judge Joanne Galbraith-Marten concluded: "Ms. Chennells tried to tackle the situation by monitoring the claimant’s scores and providing feedback to encourage him to adhere to the Examiner Guidelines more closely but by April 2022, it became apparent the claimant was not prepared to do so." Papers added that Ms Chennells had 'run out of options' when she initiated the disciplinary procedure, as it 'became apparent the claimant was not going to change and that was deliberate'.
Documents read: "It was only at that point, four years after she originally raised her concerns regarding the claimant’s scores, that the disciplinary process was initiated albeit opaquely by Ms. Chennells during the meeting of May 31, 2022."
Mr Harvey's claims of unfair dismissal was dismissed, as the Tribunal found that he had 'convinced himself' that the only way he could achieve a required average rolling score of between 30 and 70 per cent was by 'doctoring' his results and 'deliberately failing' 30 per cent of candidates.
_________________
IDFIMH
|
Login
Register
FAQ
