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
FIT AND PROPER


ASHBY PH OPERATOR WHO HIRED UNLICENSED DRIVER RECEIVES RECORD FINE


An irresponsible PH operator who illegally hired an unlicensed driver and then tried to cover it up has received a record fine. Leicestershire Live reports that North West Leicestershire District Council (NWLDC) launched an investigation into A1 Taxis in Ashby after it hired the driver but the company’s owner refused to co- operate with the investigation, destroying evidence instead. The court case that followed resulted in the biggest ever fine for a taxi licensing breach that the council has ever secured. The company’s owner, Ejaz


Ahmed, has been ordered to pay a £1,600 fine as well as £6,384 to go towards the council’s costs. In court, Ahmed, 51, from Burton- upon-Trent, admitted his failure to comply with NWLDC’s investigation into the employee who had been driving a PHV without a licence for A1 Taxis. The court heard the business owner knowingly employed the driver without the required private hire licence and then failed to keep vital records by deleting information relevant to the council’s investigation. Ahmed pleaded guilty to the


breach on July 29 and the magistrates issued him with the fine and court costs. The £8,144 will be paid in £678 instalments. Cllr Andrew Woodman, Portfolio Holder for community services at the council, said: “This is the biggest fine that we’ve ever secured in court for this type of offence, which reflects the seriousness of the crime. “Unlawful activity like this puts people’s safety at risk, including passengers and other road users and the role of our licensing enforcement officers is to stop this from happening.”


CORNWALL CABBIE LOSES LICENCE AFTER KNOCKING MAN UNCONSCIOUS


A driver has had his dual licence revoked after he knocked a man unconscious. The driver’s licence was reviewed by Cornwall Council’s Driver/Operator Licence Sub Committee which agreed to revoke his licence at an urgent meeting held in private on July 28, the minutes of which have recently been published. Councillors heard from the driver who claimed that “knocking someone out was a safe and effective way” to diffuse a situation. The driver claimed that he was an “evidence based researcher” who was into “emotional intelligence”. In the minutes, it is explained that the driver, only identified as CD237, addressed the committee to explain why he felt that no further action should be taken. However, councillors decided that


PHTM SEPTEMBER 2022


he was “not a fit and proper person” to hold a licence and that it should be revoked immediately. The minutes explain: “CD237 knocked a man unconscious in the early hours of 15 May 2022 and in the statement to the Licensing Service stated he “remained so for several minutes”. That was of great concern for members.” They add: “C237 claimed initially in that statement that the man had caused criminal damage to his car by chipping off some paint. He informed members that there was a “loud bang” to a window but there was no damage. CD237 claimed the man was intoxicated and was accompanied by another man who was threatening and if necessary would have diffused the situation in another way by using a different restraining technique.”


The minutes further state: “He claimed that when he confronted the man there was an “implied threat” which is why he acted as he did. Members were concerned as to the criteria used by CD237 to assess any threat. Members had serious concerns he would react similarly if he perceived an “implied threat” in the future. There were clear public safety concerns.” Councillors were also concerned that after placing the injured man into the recovery position the driver picked up other customers. The minutes state: “Members would have expected a fit and proper person to have contacted emergency services as soon as possible and to have a break before resuming work. It was only after working and returning to the rank that he spoke to the police.”


47


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