MOBILITY MATTERS WESTON DRIVER REFUSED TO PICK UP TWO
VISUALLY IMPAIRED PEOPLE AND THEIR GUIDE DOGS
A taxi driver who refused to transport guide dogs and their visually
owners has been fined and had his hackney
carriage
driver licence re- voked. DevonLive reports that Syed Al Miah recently appeared at Exeter Magistrates’ Court after launching an appeal against East Devon District Council’s decision to take away his licence following a com- plaint. It was alleged he had refused to transport two visually impaired people and their
impaired
guide dogs in his vehicle after they had requested a taxi to take them from a hotel to the train sta- tion in December 2017. The court was told when the taxi driver arrived at the hotel, he informed hotel staff and his two cus- tomers
that he
would not take dogs and drove away. It was heard that Miah, from Weston- super-Mare,
changed his story on several occasions. At interview he said that he was scared of dogs, but at a licens- ing hearing he stated
had
for safety reasons he believed his vehicle not to be big enough, despite it being licensed to carry five passengers. At the appeal hear- ing he claimed when arriving at the hotel he wasn’t sure if he had attended the correct job. During an investiga- tion into the com- plaint by the council, officers established he had not operated as a taxi driver in East Devon at any point since obtaining his licence from the district in 2016, but instead had worked fromNorth Somerset
where the incident occurred. East Devon’s licens- ing sub-committee decided to revoke the his licence as they felt he was no longer a fit and prop- er person to hold the licence due to his actions, and he did not operate as a taxi driver in East Devon. The Equality Act 2010 sets out the
legal duty of taxi drivers to carry as- sistance dogs and refusal to do sowith- out an exemption certificate is a strict liability offence. Exeter magistrates found in favour of the council and the decision it had made to takeMiah’s licence away. He was ordered to pay the council’s costs of
£5,000. Mmmm… A very ex- pensive error of judgment for this guy to appeal his revoca- tion, wouldn’t you say? Two counts of access refusal, incon- sistent evidence, and to top it all, working entirely outside his licensing area… Apart from all that he was doing nothing wrong (!) – Ed.
CALL TO HELP BLIND TAXI USERS IN SHROPSHIRE
Calls have been made for authorities in Shropshire to educate taxi drivers on welcoming blind people with guide dogs into their taxis. However Andrew Farrell, of Guide Dogs, said a number of cases have been reported across the region of taxi drivers refusing to take fares because they have a guide dog. Contact has been made with Shrop- shire and Telford and Wrekin Council in a bid to educate the drivers about the matter. Mr Farrell told the Shropshire Star: “We have seen it becom- ing an increasing problem across the area, with people with a dog being refused. “Under
law they
should be able to get in a taxi with their dogs, but some
12
refuse and this needs to change. It can cause issues with a blind person as they will be wor- ried about booking a certain taxi driver, or even booking a taxi at all. “It isn’t the driver’s fault, they need to be educated on the matter.” Mmmm…How many more stories are we going to come across
access denial
involving for
passengers with assistance dogs? This part of the Equality Act – which pertains both to taxi and PHV drivers - has been in place since October 2010, and before that under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995;
it’s nothing
new by any means. OK, so the drivers must be educated. We believe that in the majority of
licensing authority areas there is a degree of training/ initiation for drivers for when they trans- port disabled pas- sengers.What has to happen, in tandem with increased dis- ability training,
is
quite simply a more punitive regime of dealing with offend- ers. Paltry fines of, say, £76 do notmake any sort of impact; if a blind or partially sighted passenger is left at the roadside and the driver is not medically exempted from carrying their assistance dog, the refusal is an offence and should be pun- ished by revoking the driver’s licence – especially if he has received disability training. It’s a chicken-and- egg situation, but there are still too many eggs about. – Ed.
OCTOBER 2018
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
