IN THE NEWS


CHELTENHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL MAKE GRAVE ERROR OVER CAB LICENCE PLATE NUMBER


A taxi driver says a blunder by Chel- tenham Borough Council has put his livelihood at risk. Dial-a-Car driver Andrew Green from Lynworth was driving through Cheltenham last month when he saw another cabbie with the licence plate number 307 - the same one as his. And the 24-year-old, who applied for a pri- vate hire licence four months ago, said the


duplication could have catastrophic consequences for his career.


Mr Green told the Gloucestershire Echo: “That number is what customers identify me by. It should be unique to me.


“If someone else is driving around with the same one it puts my livelihood at risk because if something happened - a hit-and- run for instance - and all witnesses saw was


the plate number, then I would not have a leg to stand on. “It’s probably a basic administrative error but even so, it’s not acceptable.


“I’ve paid hundreds of pounds to get started, including licensing and other administra- tive fees, and yet the council can’t even seem to get three dig- its right.


“If I hadn’t seen the other car, he’d still be driving around now. I


TAXI SHOP TAXI SIGNS & ACCESSORIES


A1 SLOPE A2 SLOPE A3 SLOPE


11 x 6 x 5High 18 x 6 x 5High 24 x 6 x 7 High A4 SLOPE


36 x 6 x 7High 10 x 4 x 4High 19 x 6 x 5 High A7 LARGE SCREEN SIGNS TOBLERONE


A5 MINI A6 STANDARD


wouldn’t be surprised if there are other instances where plates are being duplicated.”


Other taxi drivers have criticised the council’s licence enforcement officers for not doing their jobs properly.


Gary Knight, 43, a cabbie from Spring- bank, said: “The enforcement officers are not monitoring the situation.


“When a driver’s


plate expires they should recall it straight away. Other- wise it leaves the door open for dupli- cation, and for people to carry on driving illegally. There have been cases where people have carried on driv- ing for months after their plates have expired.


“It’s up to the licens- ing authority to enforce it more strictly. If they don’t it’s the


customer who will suf- fer.” Trevor Gladding, Com- munity Safety and Licensing Manager at Cheltenham Borough Council, said: “This was a regrettable error which


happened


recently and as soon as it was identified we took immediate action.


“Mr Green has kept his licence plate num- ber and the other driver has received a new one.”


PINK LADIES FOUND GUILTY OF OPERATING WITHOUT


PRIVATE HIRE OPERATOR LICENCE


In a verdict delivered at Warrington Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday 29 July 2009, District Judge Ross upheld that the company known as Pink Ladies, having been prosecuted by Warrington Borough Council for operating a private hire company without the appropriate licence, was guilty of such offence under section 55 of the Local Government (Miscella- neous Provisions) Act 1976.


24 x 6 x 6 High 30 x 6 x 7 High


71/2 x 21/2 Green or Yellow 25 x 8 x 7 High N & J Pitt Taximeter Services Ltd 0115 978 5861 PAGE 46


DJ Ross heard two days of evidence dur- ing the previous week, setting out the history of the Pink Ladies company and its sub- sidiaries, and the basis under which they had operated and run their transport business. The District Judge pointed out that initially the business had been licensed by


Warrington Borough Council, but after the first year they decided that they were no longer a taxi service, but a “private mem- bers’ club”.


They gave evidence that their vehicles were owned by the members, and their members, trading under one name, then hired drivers from A N Other Pink Ladies company; this in some way protected them from licensing the operation.


In finding Andrea Winders and Tina Dut- ton guilty of the charges, DJ Ross said that the arrangement was “no more than a mere sham” controlled by the two ladies, and that their operation “drove coach and hors- es through the legislation”.


If their reading was


correct, then anybody could set up a club arrangement and then not have to have their vehicles or drivers tested or vetted. Dis- trict Judge Ross said that the true owners of the vehicles were the two ladies, and that they were indeed car- rying on a private hire business.


The District Judge did not find that they were operating without insurance, because the insurance docu- ment appeared to acknowledge what was going on. But the Judge found the two company proprietors guilty of all the other charges, and fined them £50 each for each of five charges, plus £2,500 costs each.


Pink Ladies are now considering their posi- tion.


PHTM AUGUST 2009


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112