Archive for the ‘Fit and proper?’ Category

Speeding Norwich private hire loses licence

Sunday, August 15th, 2010

A speeding private hire driver who has lost his private hire licence blamed his customers and his bosses for asking him to drive faster.

Stephen Allen

Stephen Allen, 47, of Norwich Road in Mulbarton, appeared yesterday before Norwich Magistrates Court to appeal against a city council decision not to renew his private hire driving licence after he racked up 14 points on his driving licence as a result of various speeding offences.

Although drivers are automatically disqualified when a total of 12 or more points is received, Mr Allen was allowed to keep his driving licence by a court in Ipswich because of his pleas of exceptional hardship.

But magistrates dismissed his appeal against Norwich City Council’s decision not to renew his private hire driving licence after hearing how he had deliberately driven over the speed limit because of pressure from his customers and the companies he worked for.

Mr Allen said that the last of the seven speeding incidents, which had happened in February this year in Mildenhall, had been an “obvious mistake”, but added: “All the others I was flippant, I was pushing my luck, yes that’s it - pushing the boundaries. But this particular one was just a mistake.”

However, he said that now he knew he was “on a knife edge” and that he could not afford to speed again because otherwise he would lose his licence. He admitted to having driven at 45mph in the 30mph limits on both Aylsham Road and Earlham Road, and said he once sped on Koblenz Avenue in the city because he felt threatened by his customers.

He said: “I had two passengers in my car who were obviously drug addicts - you never know who you are going to pick up - and I found it quite threatening.

“There’s no way it excuses my behaviour but I wanted to get the job over and done with. I thought I would speed to get rid of them, in all honesty. But I’m trying my best to be a better driver.”

The 47-year-old, who is separated from his wife, told the magistrates that he would lose his job and be unable to pay his mortgage if he could not get his private hire driving licence renewed.

David Foulkes, representing Mr Allen, said: “The court may take the view that there has been a significant decrease in his rate of offending. Since February he has had to ensure he drives within the law.

“He is a full-time private hire driver who drives 80,000 miles a year, and it is his only form of income. That doesn’t excuse his speeding convictions, but he knows he has a responsibility to other road users and passengers.”

But Yvonne Blake, on behalf of Norwich City Council, said personal circumstances were irrelevant in a case like this and that the council needed to ensure members of the public in Norwich using licensed vehicles were driven by people who were “fit and proper” to drive people safely.

She added: “He has seven convictions in six years, all for speeding.”

Although Mr Allen said that he had only had passengers in his car on two of the occasions, chair of the bench Helen Copperthwaite dismissed his appeal and said she found the city council’s actions had been “reasonable” because of his “prolific” speeding and the fact that the majority of the offences had taken place on residential and city centre streets.

He was ordered to pay the city council £250 in costs.

A spokeswoman for Norwich City Council said: “We’re really pleased that, in this instance, the court decided to uphold the decision of the city council’s regulatory committee to revoke a private hire licence.

“One of our aims as a licensing authority is to try and make sure that any individuals who work as private hire drivers in the city are fit and proper to carry out their duties

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/

Five Hyndburn taxi drivers suspended

Wednesday, August 4th, 2010

FIVE taxi drivers have been suspended after a three-month investigation uncovered unsafe vehicles, speeding and the use of mobile phones while driving.

Police said the five had been temporarily suspended of their licenses for ‘persistent breaches’ of regulations after a joint operation by police and Hyndburn Borough Council.

The operation saw more than 50 warning notices issued for failing to wear a taxi badge, not displaying signs and for having no fire extinguisher or first aid kit.

More than 30 drivers were given £60 fixed penalty notices for contravening no entry areas, driving using a mobile phone, failing to wear a seatbelt and speeding.

Five drivers were also summonsed to court for offences such as having dangerous vehicle parts and plying for hire, police said.

Sergeant Simon Lynch said of those suspended, the worst breach had involved a taxi which had ‘clearly been involved in an accident with headlamps hanging loose’.

He said: “It was grossly unroadworthy but still being used as a taxi.

“The others were largely suspended for not having badges or plates or basic safety equipment, which is just not acceptable. People should have the comfort of knowing they’re in a bona fide cab and they have the right to expect a first aid kit or fire extinguisher should anything happen.

“The operation came about because breaches like using mobile phones and having no plates were getting quite blatant. Members of the public were concerned and so were cab companies, and drivers themselves.

“There are over 420 licensed taxis in Hyndburn, mostly operated by drivers who take great care of their passengers. Unfortunately there are some who are less stringent and it is they who we are targeting.”

Police will continue to run similar operations in the future and are appealing to anyone with information to contact them on 0845 1 25 35 45 or Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.

source: http://www.blackburncitizen.co.uk/news/

Residents’ anger over urinating Slough taxi drivers

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

Angry residents have claimed taxi drivers are ruining their “quality of life” by urinating outside their homes.

Taxi firms said the behaviour would not be tolerated

People living in Kenilworth Close, Slough, have put up a sign saying, “This is not a public toilet” and photographed drivers caught short.

Colin Davey, who has started a campaign, said drivers were acting like animals urinating in an area where disabled and elderly people live.

One firm suspended a driver and others said behaviour would not be tolerated.

Mr Davey has also gathered dozens of signatures to hand in to Slough Borough Council and Thames Valley Police to tackle the problem.

“Taxi drivers come into the close, urinate and drive out again,” he said.

“The problem is they just urinate in front of our homes. This is a filthy habit and one way or the other we will stop it.

“The majority of housing is allocated to supported housing, so many of the residents are disabled, elderly or unfortunately have terminal illnesses.”

The majority of housing is allocated to disabled, elderly or terminally-ill people

He said although the problem has been reported to police, it still occurred.

“Maybe it’s not important enough to them but it certainly ruins our quality of life,” Mr Davey added.

“If the government and the police want to keep blaming the young ones for anti-social behaviour, maybe they should look at the behaviour of the so-called adults who call themselves professional drivers yet act like animals.”

Residents have claimed the drivers appeared to work for the firms 711-711, A4 Cars, Compass and Viking.

David Green, of A4 Cars said: “I know we had an incident a couple of weeks ago where someone phoned and complained.

“We suspended the driver for one week and put a warning out to all of our drivers. It’s totally unacceptable and we don’t want that going out from our company.”

A spokesman for 711-711 said he had not received any complaints but always worked alongside the council and police.

“I would suspend them on the spot. We could never ever tolerate it and we would take action,” he added.

Compass Cars said it was aware of the situation but believed none of its cars stopped there.

Viking said one of its drivers may have been caught short before, but it has toilet facilities in its central office and would warn its drivers.

Slough Borough Council said it would investigate the reports and praised residents for capturing evidence.

“As the licensing authority for taxis, the council can apply pressure on both companies and individuals,” a spokeswoman said.

“There is no reason why residents should have to put up with such anti-social behaviour.”

source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-10800279

Taxi firm boss backs Welwyn Hatfield Times’ FOI request

Monday, July 19th, 2010

The Information Commissioner is currently investigating a complaint made by this paper about taxi driver hearings that are held behind closed doors.

As we revealed last month, we are seeking information from the council about the reasons why a number of taxi drivers have had their licences turned down or revoked.

Our fight has been backed by the Newspaper Society.

And this week, the owner of a Times Territory taxi firm added his voice.

Airport Taxis boss Andrew Musk, who is also a member of the National Private Hire Association, said the press and the public should be entitled to attend the meetings, in the same way they can attend court hearings.

He said: “I don’t see why you can’t attend.

“The council like to sweep a lot under the carpet.

“If they behave wrongly the public don’t get to know.

“The council use it to bury the fact they make so many mistakes.”

A Welwyn Hatfield Council spokesman said: “The Information Commissioner approached the council for information relating to the complaint made by the WHT.

“All the information was duly sent on July 1, within the 20-day deadline given. We are currently awaiting the outcome of the Commissioner’s decision.”

And the spokesman reiterated the council’s stance to keep details of such meetings away from public consumption.

He said: “The reason why cases are considered under part two of this committee is due to the Local Government Act 1972.

“This stipulates that any likely disclosure of confidential information, including personal information, individual identity and private financial or business information, is exempt from the press or public on the grounds that the public interest in maintaining this exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing it.”

source: http://www.whtimes.co.uk/news/