Uber driver who refused to drive disabled passenger with her assistance dog Peanut because his family are 'allergic to animals' is fined £300 after being found guilty of breaking equality lawshttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -laws.html
An Uber driver who refused to accept a disabled passenger with her assistance dog because his family were allergic to animals has been found guilty of breaking equality laws.
Passenger Humira Mohamed, 26, said she felt scared for her safety after 46-year-old driver Jitu Miah refused to allow her and five-year-old support dog Peanut into the back of his car in the early hours of January 22 last year.
Miss Mohamed, who has a registered assistance dog to help with crippling anxiety, said she 'calmly' sought to show the driver Peanut's certificate recognising him as a working animal and explained her rights as a disabled person that prevented Miah turning her away.
But Miah refused and cancelled the booking, and later told investigators he found Ms Mohamed 'violent and abusive'.
He denied one count of refusing to carry out a booking for a disabled person accompanied by assistance dog, contrary to the Equality Act 2010, but was found guilty by magistrates at City of London.
Lord Frederick Ponsonby, chairman of the magistrates' bench, said: 'The complainant gave a consistent and credible account which explains the circumstances of the assistance dog. We accept her evidence.
'We find Mr Miah had a lack of understanding as to his legal obligations regarding assistance dogs under the Equality Act.'
Ms Mohamed, a writer from north London, said she felt 'scared and in a state of disbelief', when Miah pulled away and left her on the pavement at 2am.
She told the court she had been playing board games at a friend's house when she booked an Uber, stating she was a disabled passenger, to take her home.
But the driver refused to let her in his vehicle, she said.
Ms Mohamed, who gave evidence accompanied by Peanut, a smooth saluki-breed rescue, said: 'I told him I have an assistance dog with me, I have a certificate for him, and it's okay if you want to see it.
'He blatantly refused to take me, he said I needed to order an Uber Pet service, to which I said I didn't because he (Peanut) is not a pet, he's a medical aid.
'But he (Miah) was quiet adamant he wasn't going to take me. I tried to explain to him about the Equality Act.
'I think sometimes people look at me and think there is no disability, but sometimes disabilities are not always visible.'
Miss Mohamed, who was born with a rare eating condition which contributes to her anxiety, said the Uber driver was 'quite aggressive' and 'sassy' in his response.
She told the court: 'It's late at night, I'm on a random street, it was quite a stressful experience.
'He said he couldn't take me because his kids are allergic to dogs.
'At this point, honestly - I just wanted to get home.
'I said: I'm going to have to report you in the app if you don't take me.
'He was like: Go on then, report me, report me.'
Miss Mohamed said she was able to book another Uber within the hour, without any issues.
Miss Mohamed, who is tee-total, rejected claims from Miah's solicitor Abdul Mojid that his client did not see the dog.
She said: 'You can suggest that, but it was not true.
'I was feeling really upset and distressed and at this point discriminated against.
'I shouldn't have to fight to be in an Uber like everyone else. It makes me feel super insignificant.'
Mr Mojid suggested the victim had become 'extremely frustrated' at this point, and the court heard Miah subsequently described her behaviour to investigators as 'extremely angry and aggressive'.
But Miss Mohamed said: 'I was so calm, I had been playing board games, I just wanted to get home.
'I said: I'm going to report you.
'That was the meanest thing I said.
'I was shocked a guy would be so happy to leave a girl in the dark like that.
'I was shocked and surprised rather than angry.'
Miah, giving evidence with the assistance of a Bengali translator, said he remained polite at all times and cancelled the booking because he was concerned for his safety because of Miss Mohamed's alleged aggression.
He said his wife and children were allergic and so he did not take 'pets' in his vehicle.
He said he would take guide dogs, but would then take his vehicle to be professionally cleaned before returning home.
He acknowledged Miss Mohamed told him he had an assistance dog with him, but said he never saw the animal, which was wearing its distinctive green jacket and was tethered to his owner.
Tony Caetano, prosecuting for Transport for London, told the court: 'Mr Miah said he didn't see the dog.
'There was a big conversation about the dog, but at no stage did he say: where is the dog?
'He told you his wife and child suffer from allergies and Mr Miah should be aware of his duties under the Equality Act to carry assistance dogs - it is written on his licence.
'Even if you accept he didn't see the dog, he admits Miss Mohamed said at the end of the conversation that it is an assistance dog. He has a duty to accept it.
'He tells you the reason he didn't accept it is because Miss Mohamed was violent, aggressive and rude.
'It is my submission that the evidence by Miss Mohamed was credible and concise, whereas the evidence from Mr Miah is confusing at best.
'You can be sure Mr Miah cancelled the booking because Miss Mohamed was accompanied by an assistance dog and he didn't want to take the dog in his car.'
Miah, of Ampthill Square in north-west London, showed little emotion as the magistrates found him guilty of the single charge.
He was fined £311, ordered to pay £450 in costs, and a further £124 in victim surcharge.
The court heard Miah, who has no previous convictions, had been working as a private hire driver for around eight years before the incident.
He quit the job a short time later and currently works in retail.
Login
Register
FAQ
