Taxi Driver Online

Firm's legal bid to run cabs in town

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/Firm39s-legal-bid-to-run.4887031.jp
AN out-of-town taxi firm has launched a legal challenge in a bid to run its cars in Hartlepool.

Teesside-based Royal Cars had its operating licence stripped by Hartlepool Borough Council amid claims it was illegally picking up fares in town.

The company challenged the council and launched an appeal which is now being heard as a civil case at Hartlepool Magistrates' Court.

Magistrates have heard how Royal Cars, which runs hundreds of taxis across Middlesbrough and Stockton, was granted a licence in February 2008 to operate in Hartlepool, but within weeks local taxi companies were complaining about the firm.

That prompted council licensing boss Ian Harrison and a female colleague to go undercover in May in a bid to determine the extent of the claims.

The "couple" hailed a Royal Cars vehicle, which was not allowed to pick up unbooked fares direct off the street, but found the driver was willing to take their late-night trade.

The driver, Arfan Ali Khan, 27, was, at the time, a director of Thornaby Cars which was trading as Royal Cars in Hartlepool, and was later charged with a number of licence-breaching offences.

At a hearing earlier this week, Khan, of Borough Road, Middlesbrough, admitted a string of offences in connection with the licence and he and the company were jointly fined a total of £540 and ordered to pay £550 costs by Hartlepool magistrates.

In the appeal hearing, which started on Thursday, the court heard how Hartlepool Council later stripped the company of its licence at a behind-closed-doors meeting last October.

Council solicitor Tony Macnab told the court: "The company was granted an operator's licence on February 15 and at the time there were no objections.

"But shortly after the granting of the licence complaints were received by the council claiming they were operating illegally.

"There were claims that out-of-town vehicles were carrying out jobs in Hartlepool."

The court was told the complaints had been made by local taxi drivers and by members of the public regarding the conduct of Royal Cars.

The hearing continues on Monday.

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

This outfit has that much work that they need to pick up off the street. I am surprised at the small collective fine by the Magistrates but I can just imagine this directors approach to illegal plying for hire and the policy he obviously supports and condones for all drivers employed by this firm which were demontrated by his own laissez-faire attitude to illegal plying for hire.



Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

I think this firm has vehicles licensed from all over the North East working for it.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

So whats the actual setup of this outfit are they operating legally?

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

Are they operating only hackney vehicles in hartlepool then or have they licensed cars as PH in Hartlepool in which case they would need to have a base in hartlepool surely ?

If you look at the stockton gov website and some of the licensing committee meetings you'll get an idea of some of the standards.

I understand from colleagues across in the North East that this firm in particular has an undesirable element, however, as you will appreciate cab drivers sometimes let us know what they want us to know.

regards

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

14 October 2008

A TAXI firm is facing a ban from picking up fares in Hartlepool just months after moving into town.

Royal Cars, based in Whitby Street, Hartlepool, could lose its licence at the end of the month after a council investigation into its activities.

Exact details as to why the company is to be barred have still to be revealed and it still has just over a fortnight to launch an appeal.

But the Mail understands that council licensing officers have been monitoring Royal Cars over the past month. If the company chooses to accept Hartlepool Borough Council's decision then the ban will be enforced.

Royal Cars moved into Hartlepool about five months ago after starting off in Thornaby.

A council spokesman said: "We can confirm that the council's licensing committee recently decided to revoke the operator's licence of Royal Cars.

"The revocation will take effect in 21 days during which the company has the right to appeal. It would not therefore be appropriate to say anything further at this stage."

A spokesman for Royal Cars said: "We do not want to comment at the moment."

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Saturday 29th July 2006



A TAXI boss has been handed a hefty fine after he almost doubled the size of his business without permission.

Teesside Magistrates' Court fined Arfan Khan £9,600 over his extension in Thornaby of taxi company Royal Cars.

The court heard how Stockton Borough Council brought 24 charges under building legislation against him after surveyors spotted work in progress in Stephenson Street, on the Bon Lea Industrial Estate.

Mr Khan must also pay £10 for every day the issue is not remedied, as well as £486 in costs.

At the time, the extension did not have planning permission nor had building control surveyors been involved in the work.

The extension doubled the size of the premises and surveyors could not establish whether the work met legal standards.

Although he later successfully applied for retrospective planning permission, Mr Khan failed to take steps to ensure its construction was to an acceptable standard.

Before bringing the case, council officers visited the premises five times and also wrote to Mr Khan asking for access to check the work, all without success.

Raymond Sullivan, the council's building control manager, said: "We did all we could to give Mr Khan the opportunity to make sure his work complied with building regulations. We have a duty to check things like the standard of foundations, drainage and levels of insulation.

"Once work has been completed without inspection, it can be very difficult for us to check it - it's hard to inspect foundations once they have already been built on, for example.

"But there may still be a way of inspecting the work and we urge Mr Khan to allow us access to check it and see whether he can resolve any defects."

Mr Khan did not appear in court during the hearing on Tuesday.

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Nov 2007

Consideration was given to a report on a conviction imposed on a licensed private hire driver for illegally plying for hire contrary to section 45 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, and using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks contrary to the Section 143 Road Traffic Act 1988

At the time of this meeting Mr M G was a licensed private hire driver. He had been licensed since 1990 and his current licence was due to expire on 30 November 2008.

Legal proceedings were instituted against Mr M G on the 30 April 2007 following an enforcement operation undertaken by Officers in October 2006 when he agreed to carry under cover officers in his private hire vehicle without being pre-booked. On the night in question Mr M G refused to be interviewed by officers of this Council because he wanted an interpreter. However records showed that Mr M G was interviewed at the roadside by officers of this council in 1990 and no interpreter was needed a copy of this interview was attached to the report.

Also Mr M G was also interviewed at the roadside by a Police sergeant on the 25th July 1992 and no interpreter was needed then. A copy of the Police Sergeants statement and a record of the interview were attached to the report.

Mr M G was found guilty in his absence at Teesside Magistrates Court on 12th June 2007 for illegally plying for hire contrary to section 45 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks contrary to the Section 143 Road Traffic Act 1988.

Mr M G was fined £150 for plying for hire and £300 and 6 penalty points on his DVLA drivers licence for the no insurance offence. He was also ordered to pay £50 towards costs.


Members were advised that the prosecution followed a ‘test purchasing' exercise carried out jointly by Licensing Officers, Trading Standards Officers and Cleveland Police in October last year in the Prince Regent Street area of Stockton following complaints from the hackney carriage trade about private hire vehicles illegally plying for hire in this area.

Mr M G appealed against the conviction to the Crown Court and he attended Court and was also represented by a Barrister. Mr M G had indicated that he did not understand English very well and there was talk of having to obtain an interpreter. The Judge indicated that this was worrying given that Mr M G is a licensed taxi driver. After a long delay as to whether or not he wished to have an interpreter Mr M G decided that he wished to abandon his appeal. On behalf of Mr M G his barrister indicated that he was 62 years old and had a wife and a 21 year old daughter who lived in the family home. Mr M G paid all the household bills as his wife did not work, he took home approximately £150 per week after deductions. He had no savings as he used these to help his son purchase his house.

Mr M G and Mr Gerry Burns from Royal Cars who was representing Mr M G were in attendance at the meeting. Also Mr Hussain from Trading Standards was in attendance to help if necessary with any interpretation.

Members had regard to the report and appendices, copies of which had been provided to Mr M G, prior to the meeting. Members also had regard to the statement of means form which had been completed by Mr M G and to the comments made at the meeting by officers and Mr M G's representative.

Members noted that Mr M G did not work for many hours per week; Mr M G indicated that he worked between 10 - 15 hours. However evidence was available to show that in April 2007 Mr M G had worked over 280 hours during the month. This showed Mr M G had a fairly considerable income in that month and that did not take into account any money Mr M G would have earned from passenger tips. The Committee informed Mr M G that they had to be clear about what hours he was working as this could have an impact on their decision i.e. if Mr M G worked few hours and had little income from his taxi driving then there would be little impact on him should his licence be revoked. If Mr M G worked many hours then there would be a greater financial burden on him should his licence be revoked. Members found Mr M G's answers to be particularly evasive when asked to provide clarification on the hours he worked and which hours he had worked over the last months.

In making their determination Members took into account the following factors:-

1. Mr M G had wilfully committed the offence of plying for hire without a licence and as such was convicted of this offence. An offence under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 is a specific ground for the revocation of licence under Section 61(1)(a)(ii) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act 1976.

2. Members also noted that Mr M G had been convicted of using a vehicle without insurance (IN10), under the Councils guidelines on the relevance of convictions this was classed as a major traffic offence. Applicants with such a conviction would normally be expected to show a period of four years following conviction before an application would be considered. The safety of passengers was paramount and Mr M G's actions in plying for hire meant that he was not covered by his insurance policy which could have had serious implications for Mr M G and members of the public.

3. In addition to the convictions the Committee also noted that there was a discrepancy between the statement of means form Mr M G had completed which detailed he earned £80 per week. When Mr M G appeared before the Crown Court on his appeal in October 2007 he had informed the Court, through his Barrister, that he earned £150 per week. The Committee were provided with a copy of a shift report for the month of April 2007 from Royal Cars which showed he had worked 285 hours and earned £2102.50p in cash. When asked by the Committee if he declared his income to the Benefits department he stated "yes, I declare it every year". However, documentary evidence was produced to Members from the Council's Benefits Department who confirmed that Mr M G had not reported any income since 2004. The Committee found Mr M G to be dishonest in this matter.

Members were reminded that under the provisions of Section 61(1)(a) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 the Council may suspend or revoke or refuse to renew the licence of a hackney carriage and/or private hire driver on the following grounds:-

That he has since the grant of a licence:-

(i) been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty, indecency or violence; or

(ii) been convicted of an offence under or fails to comply with the provisions of the Act of 1847 or of this part of this Act; or

(iii) any other reasonable cause

A copy of the Council's adopted guidelines on the relevance of convictions was attached to the report for Members information.

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Taxi driver fined over licence




A TAXI driver has been fined for operating without a proper licence after council investigators caught him in an undercover sting.

Arfan Ali Khan, 27, was clocked by licensing officers from Hartlepool Borough Council who were posing as a couple out on a Saturday night in a bid to catch rogue taxi drivers.

Khan was seen dropping off a customer outside Loons bar in Victoria Road, Hartlepool, and receiving what officers said appeared to be payment.

After they flagged down his Skoda Octavia, that can only accept pre-booked custom as a private hire vehicle, they asked for a lift down to the Lighthouse pub in the town's Church Street.

Hartlepool Magistrates' Court heard Khan abruptly stopped the car just seconds into the journey, saying he couldn't take them because he needed to tow a broken down company vehicle elsewhere in the town.

After being confronted, he admitted he did not have a licence to operate in Hartlepool, but falsely tried to claim the passenger he had dropped off was a "good friend".

Magistrates heard that when the incident happened, at around midnight on May 31 last year, Khan was the director of Thornaby Cars Ltd, which had been trading as Royal Cars, in Whitby Street, Hartlepool, for around 10 months.

Prosecuting for the council, Tony Macnab said: "Inquiries were carried out with the passenger Khan had just dropped off. He confirmed that he pre-booked the journey and had paid the fare, and he did not know the driver."

Talking about the night in question, Khan said: "We were short on members of staff in the office and short of vehicles, so I decided to take a vehicle out to make the drop myself."

He said he feels "completely terrible" and it was a "mistake".

Khan said he recognised the licensing officers and had intended to give them a free lift, and denied an accusation of plying for hire.

Khan, of Borough Road, Middlesbrough, pleaded guilty to operating the vehicle without a licence to trade in Hartlepool and received a £90 fine and the company also pleaded guilty to having a driver without a licence and received a £200 fine.

Royal Cars pleaded guilty to failing to record the passenger's journey in a record of bookings, and received a £100 fine.

Khan was also found guilty of giving false information regarding the licence and was fined £80 and pleaded guilty to giving false information about the passenger and received a £70 fine.

Magistrates dismissed the charge of plying for trade as a hackney carriage against Khan and Royal Cars.

A further charge of no insurance was dismissed.

As well his total of £240 in fines, Khan was also ordered to pay £250 in costs and the company was ordered to pay £350 costs on top of its total fines of £300.

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin