PROPER...FIT AND PROPER GUILDFORD DRIVER’S LICENCE


REVOKED - DECISION CONFIRMED


A hackney carriage driver has had their appeal against Guildford Council’s decision to revoke their driver’s licence dismissed by Guild- ford Magistrates’ Court. The council revoked the driver’s licence in July 2019 for a number of reasons, including not hav- ing a valid MoT for their vehicle, lack of vehicle mainte- nance, false declar- ation, non-compli- ance with licensing conditions and fail- ure to comply with a statutory notice to return their licence plates. The


council also re- ceived a number of complaints about their standard of driving. The driver appealed the decision but failed to comply with the directions of the court and serve evidence. At a hearing at Guildford Magistrates’ Court on 4 December, a Judge refused the driver’s application to adjourn the appeal, and as the driver had present- ed no evidence, dismissed the ap- peal. The driver was also ordered to pay the council’s costs of £2,137.


Mike Smith, Licens- ing Team Leader at Guildford Borough Council, says: “We are pleased that the court dismissed this appeal. We do not take the decision to revoke a licence lightly, but we have a duty to protect public safety.” Mmmm… So apart from all the above misdemeanours, failure to comply with the court’s directions, and not providing the court any evidence, this driver is a stirling example of the trade…!! What a waste of taxpayers’ money – Ed.


TORBAY DRIVER WHO FAILED TO REPORT SPEEDING LOSES LICENCE


A driver has had his taxi licence with- drawn after failing to report three speeding offences. Torbay Council’s licensing sub-com- mittee revoked John Robert Cree’s PH and HC licence after a hearing. According to Devon- Live, Councillors heard Mr Cree failed to notify the author- ity of the three offences which hap- pened within a fortnight in Febru- ary and March this year. The offences led to nine penalty points being put on his licence and were discovered during a routine check of DVLA records by the council’s licens- ing team in October.


The authority’s taxi licensing policy states offences including speeding have to be reported by licence holders within five working days. Mr Cree told the sub-committee one offence was for driv- ing at 57mph in a 50mph limit when it reduced from 70 mph on the motor- way as he returned from Bristol, and he was “just going with the traffic”. The other two were for breaking the 30mph area in New- ton Road, Torquay, near his home. He said he was caught at 36mph in a non-residential area when the reduction from a


JANUARY 2020


previous 40mph limit “slipped my mind”. Mr Cree said he was not working and was alone in the car at the time of each speeding offence. He said he had never had a com- plaint or driving offence in the ten years he had worked as a taxi driver. He failed to tell the licensing authority because he had not been working as a driver for some time. “All I would say is, out of sight, out of mind,” he told the hearing. Sub-committee chair Cllr Vic Ellery an- nounced the decis- ion to revoke Mr Cree’s dual licence immediately.


Bury Council has been awarded costs after a taxi driver who had his licence refused lost his court appeal. The Bury Times reports that earlier this year a vehicle belonging to hack- ney carriage driver Ajmal Khan failed its test at the council’s testing station.


The vehicle had notched up nine faults, exceeding the maximum of five faults permitted under council policy for vehicles over ten years old. As a result members of the local authori- ty’s licensing panel refused to renew Mr Khan’s licence at a hearing on March 7.


BURY DRIVER WHO HAD LICENCE REFUSED LOSES COURT APPEAL


Mr Khan then appealed the deci- sion, taking the case to court. However, at a hear- ing at Manchester and Salford Magis- trates’ Court on September 10, mag- istrates upheld the licensing panel’s decision and award- ed the council £1,000 in costs.


BANBURY TAXI DRIVER ‘FAILED TO DISCLOSE DRIVING DEATH’


A taxi driver has been convicted of fraud after he failed to declare a convic- tion of causing death by careless driving on his licence application. BBC News reports that Oxford Magis- trates’ Court heard Ifraan Mahmood, 30, “ ticked no” to previous convic- tions on a Cherwell District Council licence application form.


Mahmood had been sentenced in 2010 when he hit a man with his car and killed him. Magistrate Nicola Moeran said Mah- mood answered the form “ dishonestly” . Despite Mahmood’s previous convictions being revealed on a disclosing and bar- ring service (DBS) certificate,


the


father of two was granted a council licence straight away”. Christine Pegler, a licence enforcement


officer, could not answer why the licence was granted, but said had the council known his offences, it would have been refused. The court heard the council investigated Mahmood’s applica- tion after a police officer made a com- plaint in January. Ms Pegler said she questioned a staff member who dealt with Mahmood’s DBS check but the employee “had no recollection”. The court heard Mahmood failed a “knowledge test” to gain a taxi licence in 2016. The defendant, of Byron Road, Ban- bury, said his previous convictions had been “all dis- closed” on his 2016 application, so he left the boxes “blank” when he reapplied in 2018, because “he could not remember the dates the offences took place”.


He said he was told by a council officer they would update his new application with the convictions from his previous one. He said: “All my offences were on the first application. I wanted to get it off the first application. I cannot lie, because it will come back to you with DBS checks.” Prosecuting, Rich- ard Atkins said the defendant left an application meeting “with a form that said you had no pre- vious convictions” and also left a form with a council offi- cer “that was completed, that you had no convictions at all”. Fining the defen- dant £500, Mrs Moeran said Mah- mood “very clearly ticked no” to any previous convictions on the application he made in 2018 and had been “dishon- est”.


55


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