search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
IN THE NEWS


THOUSANDS OF LONDON CABBIES WRONGLY RECEIVE FINES AFTER DATA ERROR AT TfL


Black cab drivers in London faced a significant issue due to an IT error at Transport for London. Thousands of drivers wrongly received penalty


charges for


entering congestion charge or ULEZ zones, despite being exempt. The Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association was inundated with calls from members seeking assistance. The LTDA’s general secretary, Steve McNamara, believes the number of affected drivers is in the thousands. Many drivers were concerned about the potential escalation of penalty charges if not addressed promptly.


“Some asked if they should just pay them to make them go away,” Mr McNamara said. The IT glitch that caused the issue is believed to be related to a recent cyberattack on TfL that com- promised financial account data for about 5,000 people. The incident – in connection to which a 17-year-old boy was arrested – also impacted digital services and payments via TfL apps. Meanwhile, the current situation was exacerbated by the inability of drivers to reach TfL through their phone lines. The LTDA urged TfL to resolve the issue promptly and provide


adequate support to the affected drivers. Lee Drinkwater, who runs a fleet of electric taxis, said he knew of 300 penalty charge notices sent to his drivers. He said TfL advised him to send in licence details for each driver to have the charges cancelled. “I can’t have staff spending this much time on the tickets... it’s not acceptable,” he said. TfL has since apologised for any inconvenience caused and issued a blanket cancellation of the fines. The transport authority said that the fines had been issued because of an “error with a routine data upload”.


DUDLEY SCHOOL TAXI AND PRIVATE HIRE STING UNCOVERS DEFECTIVE VEHICLES


A sting operation in Dudley has uncovered a minibus with a rotten chassis and another with no rear lights among 27 private hire vehicles and taxis inspected for school transport. The operation took place at the Merry Hill Centre on October 21, focusing on vehicles transporting children to a nearby special school. Unlike previous checks conducted at school sites, the sting operation was held at the centre due to the number of vehicles involved. Nick Slym, Dudley Council’s assistant team manager for licensing, said the checks were essential to ensure the safety of children transported to school. “We are checking to make sure vehicles are roadworthy, insurance and driving licences are in place,


52


and all conditions of the licence are being upheld,” he said. The vehicles were inspected by council officers, DVSA staff, and West Midlands Police officers. All taxis/PHVs involved were from companies contracted to provide transport for children with special needs under strict conditions. Andy Beaman, a transport officer with the borough’s travel support team, emphasised the importance of maintaining high standards for vehicles and operators. “We require a standard from each vehicle and each operator,” he said. “We can go back now to parents and schools to show that all the vehicles have been checked and are roadworthy.” In addition to


the defective vehicles, the checks identified two


illegal number plates, drivers without badges, and one driver without insurance. Companies and drivers could face penalties, including criminal prosecution. The two defective vehicles had their licences suspended and operators will need to demonstrate necessary repairs before they can be used again. Councillor David Stanley, Dudley cabinet member for children’s services, emphasised the priority of children’s safety. “Safety of our children and young people is paramount,” he said. “The majority of drivers and vehicles were found to have the standards expected, but there were a small number of drivers who were found to be contravening their licence.”


NOVEMBER 2024 PHTM


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