Taxi Driver Online

...and the rest

...and not just a magistrates' appeal either - wonder who advised this daftie to take it to the crown court?

And, excuse my ignorance, but where do the DBS checks figure in all this?


Private hire driver loses Crown Court appeal for licence

https://www.cheltenham.gov.uk/news/arti ... or_licence

Mr Rahman’s appeal was dismissed, and he was ordered to pay costs of £4,180.50 to the council

Cheltenham Borough Council private hire driver loses Crown Court appeal for the revocation of his licence after being found with bald tyres during 2025 March Festival.

As part of a joint enforcement operation for the Cheltenham Festival week, a Cheltenham Borough Council (CBC) licensed private hire vehicle was inspected by the Avon and Somerset Police taxi compliance officer in company with a CBC licensing officer.

The vehicle was found to have two tyres below the legal limit. As a result of this incident, it was also found that the driver had failed to notify the council of previous motoring offences and had made false statements on his initial application and subsequent renewal application.

The private hire driver licence was reviewed at a licensing sub committee in April 2025 and the licence was revoked under public safety grounds.

This revocation was subsequently appealed to Cheltenham Magistrates Court where the decision was upheld. He then appealed to the Crown Court and this was heard on 9 February 2026.

The Court held that the decision of the licensing committee was not wrong. It found that the six driving offences committed over 11 years was a large number when that person drives for a living.

The Court accepted that the driver failed to declare speeding fines to the council and stated that Mr Rahman was not an honest person and that there was a pattern of dishonesty in this case.

The court found that the council were perfectly entitled to find that Mr Rahman was not a fit and proper person and that they had not been persuaded that the decision to revoke his licence was a wrong decision or anything approaching a wrong decision.

Mr Rahman’s appeal was dismissed, and he was ordered to pay costs of £4,180.50 to the council.

The Avon and Somerset Police taxi compliance officer, PC Quinton said: “The overwhelming majority of taxis and private hire vehicles are safe and their drivers reliable, hardworking and trustworthy.

“Those who are negligent about the safety and legality of their vehicle, as in this case, can expect to be investigated and appropriate action taken by both the police and Licensing Authority - regardless of where they are licensed.”

Councillor Victoria Atherstone, cabinet member for safety and communities, said: “Cheltenham Borough Council is committed to ensuring the safety and legality of taxi and private hire services in our community.

“This successful case of partnership working sends a very clear message that we will not tolerate illegal activity in our town and ensure that we protect Cheltenham residents and our visitors through partnership working with other police forces and licensing authorities.

“I would like to thank our licensing team and our partners for their diligent work in the successful conclusion of this case.”

And this case is particular interesting in terms of the FOI rabbit hole in the other section. Although a shedload of legal stuff outlined briefly in the press release above, here the council didn't actually prosecute anyone. So the answer to the basic FOI request in terms of this particular driver would have been precisely zero

And, in terms of last year's FOI request itself, this is the answer from Cheltenham Borough Council - of course, you might get the impression from stuff in the press etc that Cheltenham does a lot of prosecutions, but it would seem not:


https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... cutions_65

Which is why I questioned the questions in the other thread.

As to why he appealed, I suspect he was allowed to continue working during the appeal.

_________________
IDFIMH