...PROPER
WELWYN GARDEN CITY TAXI DRIVER FINED FOR REFUSING TO TAKE FARE
A taxi driver, who refused to take a woman to her home late at night in the rain, has been slapped with fines and costs of more than £1,000. Syed Shaheed, 48, from Luton, had, via an Urdu interpreter, denied snubbing Jacqueline Doney’s request to go from Howardsgate to Walden Road - a dis- tance of around 0.7 miles.
He also claimed not to remember the inci- dent, at around 10pm on January 5 this year. But his protestations cut no ice when he appeared before St Albans Magistrates on last month, and he was found guilty. The court heard how Mrs Doney had just got off the train at
WGC and, not wanting to walk home alone through the woods, had opened the door to Shaheed’s VW Sha- ran and attempted to hire him.
Shaheed’s vehicle was the first cab on the rank, and under the terms of his hack- ney carriage licence it is an offence to refuse a fare to any destina- tion within the Welwyn Hatfield district.
IT worker Mrs Doney told the court: “I went to the taxi rank, to the first taxi on the rank and said ‘can you take me to Walden Road please?’.
“The driver said ‘par- don’ and I said can you take me to Walden Road?’”
After explaining to Shaheed where her
address was, he twice said to her: “I think you should walk.” Mrs Doney made a note of Shaheed’s number plate ID when she got in the next taxi on the rank, and com- plained to the council by email.
She later identified Shaheed from a pic- ture of him among another 12 faces. Shaheed was ordered to pay a £250 fine, £15 victim surcharge and the council’s legal costs of £800, by chairman of the bench Alan Burton.
Outside the court Mrs Doney who was left “shocked” at Sha- heed’s refusal to take her home, told the Welwyn Hatfield Times: “It was the right verdict.”
MID SUSSEX DRIVER WHO CALLED POLICE LOSES HIS LICENCE
A taxi driver who called police to report he was being assault- ed by a passenger has lost his taxi licence after officers found he was over the drink- drive limit.
Councillors revoked the driver’s licence after hearing of his sentenc- ing for drink-driving. The driver, who is working in another job now, told the Mid Sus- sex Times: “It was me who called the police. “The night in question, I’d had a few drinks at about nine or ten in the evening and it was about four in the morn- ing when I picked up this man from Wealden Way near Haywards Heath police station. “He was complaining about the amount of leg room and I rang police to report he was assaulting me.
“I was subsequently breathalysed and that’s
how this all happened. He was charged with assault and let off with a small fine.”
Despite the unusual circumstances of the case the council says it will come down hard on any other taxi driv- ers found guilty of a similar offence.
Mid Sussex Council has confirmed the decision of its licensing sub- committee to revoke the licence after it heard that at Crawley Magis- trates’ Court on 30 June the driver was disquali- fied from driving for 17 months, reduced by four months upon agreement to undertake a rehabilitation course, fined £100, ordered to pay court costs of £200 and a victim surcharge of £15.
Gary Marsh, chairman of the Licensing Sub- Committee, said: “We are fortunate in Mid Sussex that cases like
NOVEMBER 2011 PHTM
this are extremely rare, but when they do occur we will not hesitate in taking strong action. “Drink driving is never acceptable, and still less so for taxi drivers who are endangering not only their own lives but those of their passengers.” Mmmm… Yeah, right, ‘nuf said about the drink-drive business. The guy wants his head testing for even think- ing of putting himself in that position in the first place. He might at least have considered the ‘eight hours between bottle and throttle’ rule of thumb, especially as a licensed driver, and didn’t quite leave it the eight hours. But it seems rough justice that the attacker was let off with a small fine. But then two wrongs don’t make a right… He has at least left the trade – Ed.
CANTERBURY CABBIES FLOUT SMOKING LAWS
One complaint a week is made about taxi drivers being rude, overcharging and driv- ing badly.
According to a report in the Kentish Gazette, figures released by Canterbury City Coun- cil show they receive 50 complaints a year about cabbies in the Canterbury district. In the last year alone, two drivers have been suspended and three have had their licences revoked. A further 12 cabbies flouting smoking bans in their cars have been hit with tickets, while one case ended in a court prosecution. One driver lost his licence after a string of complaints were made
about him.
It was said he over- charged, committed traffic offences, caused damage to a vehicle and verbally abused staff.
Another had his licence revoked for driving without due care and attention. Customers complained he was speeding and had an aggressive driv- ing style.
The third cabbie to lose his licence was accused of overcharg- ing, intimidation and having an unprofes- sional attitude. Two drivers were also refused a licence for trying to hide criminal convictions, including criminal damage and possession of Class A
drugs.
A further three cabbies were suspended for offences including using an unlicensed vehicle and failing to stop after an accident. Heather Sewell, chair- man of the Canterbury and District Taxi Asso- ciation, says a “tiny minority” of drivers give others a bad name.
She told the Gazette: “Most complaints we hear of are about over- charging or drivers refusing to take peo- ple short distances. “But most of the driv- ers in the area are very honest and good at what they do. Unfortu- nately you do get the odd one who spoils it for the rest of us.”
60 COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST CARLISLE CABBIES
More than 30 com- plaints against Carlisle cabbies have led to the drivers receiving a warning or being given official advice in the last three years. Complaints that led to guidance being issued have included accusa- tions of dangerous driving, giving abuse to the public and being racist.
Advice or a warning was also given over allegations that a cab- bie swore at a railway station worker, a driver was using a mobile phone and a taxi was being used without an MoT.
More than 60 com- plaints have been made against taxi driv- ers licensed by Carlisle City Council in the last three years. Many of these were ruled to be unfounded and led to no further action being taken. Others - such as claims of overcharg-
ing - led to a quick check which found there was no problem. There were 31 cases where advice or a warning was issued to the driver in question. Taxi driver representa- tives say the figure is a small one compared to the number of jour- neys drivers make and claim it is “not a seri- ous problem”.
Brian McCullough, a committee member with Carlisle Taxi Asso- ciation, told the Carlisle News and Star: “We are a service industry and we have to treat the public with the respect they are due. If any complaint is upheld we have no sympathy with the driv- er. But the number of genuine complaints are few and far between.” Mr McCullough point- ed out many pas- sengers picked up on night shifts will have ‘had a drink’.
“As an association we
obviously don’t agree with anybody abusing passengers,” he add- ed. “But from our point of view it is more likely to be the taxi driver getting the abuse.” The figures, from the local authority’s files, have been released under the Freedom of Information Act. Cllr David Morton, chairman of the city council’s regulatory panel, said: “There are more than 300 licensed taxi and private hire drivers in Carlisle and the vast majority have received no complaints. “Of those that have, this is mainly the result of mis-communication between the driver and the complainant and not any serious misconduct.
“There are clear rules in place for the expect- ed conduct of licensed taxi drivers and we take any complaints against them very seri- ously.”
PAGE 61
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
