Taxi Driver Online

Well this is a bit odd - for a start, not often stuff like this would even be reported, particularly when the hearing hasn't actually happened.

But this is presumably just lifted from the court listings for today.

Although it is odd that there are four defendants here, but who knows precisely what the scenario was

And spot the detail that's missed out here, but would normally be specifically stated in a report like this.


Four Stoke-on-Trent taxi drivers in court today

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/st ... s-10880608

They're appearing at North Staffordshire Justice Centre

Four Stoke-on-Trent taxi drivers are due in court today. The defendants are: Muhammad Chaudhury, of Dundee Road, Etruria; Liaqat Begum, of Kimberley Road, Etruria; Shaban Ali, of Ladywell Road, Tunstall; and Ardalan Ali, of Grove Place, Shelton.

They are each charged with operating an unlicensed hackney carriage. Each charge has the same location - Knutton Lane, in Newcastle-under-Lyme - on 27 April, 2025.

The court papers state: "The defendant, being the driver of a carriage, namely a hackney carriage, on Knutton Lane, Newcastle-under-Lyme, drove, stood or plied for hire when the carriage was not licensed as a public hackney carriage."

The defendants are due to appear at North Staffordshire Justice Centre from 10am today.

The report says they're 'Stoke taxi drivers', so taking it at face value they're presumably Stoke-badged and plated HCs plying for hire out-of-area.

But, of course, it could mean they're just from Stoke, and were actually working in-area, but in PHVs...

Or even Stoke-plated PHVs, plying for hire out-of-area

But, and assuming they are badged and plated in some way, shape or form, they were presumably ranking where the shouldn't have been ranking...

I'd guess there was an unofficial rank forming somewhere and for some reason, and they were part of it, as opposed to an official rank but not in locally-plated HCs.

And at a very basic level, that just doesn't make sense, at least as it stands. It says the were driving HCs, but that the vehicles weren't licensed as HCs. Presumably that's because they were plying out of area. But to the average reader of the Stoke Sentinel, it can't make much sense

And the detail that was oddly missed out was the court they're appearing at - presumably the magistrates', but that's always stated in reports like this.

Anyway, not only another slow news day at the Ipswich Star and Stoke Sentinel, but another slow news day on TDO - hence my waffling

based on similar stories that have appeared on here over the years especially stone. It seems to be a thing with this whole area 5 towns +, that drivers from any of the licensing districts move around depending on where the work is available . I also seem to recall that non wav hackneys are the norm in this part of the world. Must admit that haven't been back there for over 3 years since the last of my cousins funerals so that might have changed.

I think it is safe to assume that there is a good chance these are hackney licensed but operating out of their licensing district. I am surprised actually that there isn't a unified north staffordshire council encompassing all of the Towns in the area it would make sense.

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

Yes, I was thinking earlier about the Stone stuff and what you said, Edders.

And I didn't realise Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent are effectively the same conurbation, but obviously with different licensing councils. But that kind of helps explain the plying for hire thing.

Stone is a few miles further south, and in the Stafford Council area.

But obviously very messy around there...

Oh, well, this is a full enough explanation of what went on

And clarifies the plating - I think this was encompassed in what I speculated above as regards the possible scenario, but certainly not what I'd have guessed if forced to put money on it

But just a slapped wrist for them all - conditional discharge - although it's cost them over a grand in costs etc. And obviously impossible to tell from this what the badging implications might be


Three rule-breaking taxi drivers named and shamed

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/st ... y-10883918

They've appeared in court

A joint operation between Newcastle Borough Council and Staffordshire Police has resulted in three taxi drivers appearing in court. Liaqat Begum, of Kimberley Road, Etruria; Shaban Ali, of Ladywell Road, Tunstall; and Ardalan Ali, of Grove Place, Shelton, have all been given a conditional discharge.

On 27 April last year two plain clothes council officers approached the taxis in Newcastle town centre and asked if they were available. After a short drive, they were all pulled over by police for further investigation.

Ardalan Ali had private hire plates registered with Stoke-on-Trent City Council, Shaban Ali and Liaqat Begum had private hire plates registered with Wolverhampton City Council. Private hire plates mean that taxi journeys need to be booked in advance and cannot be hailed on the street.

As none of the defendants had a hackney carriage licence issued by Newcastle Borough Council, which would have allowed them to accept street hails, this constituted an offence. All three defendants pleaded guilty.

Magistrates at North Staffordshire Justice Centre handed down a one year conditional discharge and ordered costs of £1,000 and £26 victim surcharge to be paid within a year.

That's the misleading thing - the first report gives the impression that they were driving HCs, when they weren't

Another slightly odd thing is that it says they were plying for hire in Knutton Lane in the town centre.

And could be wrong, but the nearest Knutton Lane seems to be to the town centre is where it meets the inner ring road, so not really in town centre per se, and it doesn't look like the type of location where drivers intent on picking up illegal hires would sit - this is Knutton Lane on approach to the inner ring road here. (And note the reference to Stone on the direction sign )

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Knutt ... FQAw%3D%3D

But, of course, all that's irrelevant if they actually accepted an un-booked hire - maybe it's a street where PHVs use to park up a lot of the time, but maybe not what would normally be considered 'ranking'. Maybe it was just the fact that there were three of them charged that gives that impression.

And, of course, on the wider stuff about 'compliance' and 'enforcement' etc, again it's an example of other councils doing what Wolverhampton Council itself never seems to do in relation to its own cars, despite it no doubt happening on an industrial scale - catching them plying for hire

that's another three pirates who will be no longer in our trade.

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector