Almost a double post within the same post.
| Taxi Driver Online http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| PH illegal pick-up could cost him licence http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13843 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | captain cab [ Thu Apr 08, 2010 10:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | PH illegal pick-up could cost him licence |
PH illegal pick-up could cost him licence A Private Hire driver has been fined for illegally plying for hire. Ibrar Latif picked up two passengers in Stone last July, despite only having a Stoke-on-Trent private hire licence at the time. He pleaded guilty to plying for hire without a licence at Stafford Magistrates' Court yesterday and was ordered to pay £605. Lucky 7 driver Latif, aged 31, of Cromartie Street, Longton, may also lose his livelihood when his licence is reviewed by Stoke-on-Trent City Council next month. Simon Turner, prosecuting for Stafford Borough Council, told the court that Sergeant Andrew Stone saw Latif parked outside The Lounge bar in High Street, Stone, in the early hours. Sgt Stone noted that Latif's vehicle had a Stoke-on-Trent City Council-issued private hire plate and saw two women approach the car. Mr Turner said: "They spoke to the defendant before getting into the vehicle, which then drove off. "Sergeant Stone followed in his own car and caused Latif to stop. He asked one of the ladies when they had booked the taxi. "She replied that they had not booked it. They had seen it outside the bar and had asked the driver if he could take them." After he was charged, Latif initially claimed Lucky 7 had received a booking to pick up a customer in Stone. But after the transcript of a police interview with one of the passengers became available, he changed his plea to guilty. David James, defending, told the court his client had been a taxi driver for seven years and this was the first time he had been guilty of illegally plying for hire. He said that on the morning in question, Latif had dropped a passenger off in Stone and had been waiting to see if another booking in the area came through. Lucky 7 did receive a booking, but it was not for the two women Latif picked up. Mr James said: "He should have checked. But he didn't have a phone number and he didn't have a name. "He knows that the general policy of Stoke-on-Trent City Council is that when a driver is guilty of illegally plying for hire, regardless of their track record, which in Mr Latif's case has been good, they will be brought before the licensing panel. He could lose his livelihood, and that is something that terrifies him." Mr James added that since the incident, Latif had successfully applied for a Hackney carriage licence from the city council. Tahir Mahmood, a Lucky 7 manager, said all their drivers were self-employed. He said: "If a council officer told us a driver had been plying for hire, we would suspend them." The magistrates handed Latif a £100 fine and ordered him to pay £490 costs and a £15 victim surcharge. source: http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/ |
|
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Thu Apr 08, 2010 10:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Almost a double post within the same post.
|
|
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Thu Apr 08, 2010 10:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: PH illegal pick-up could cost him licence |
captain cab wrote: David James, defending, told the court his client had been a taxi driver for seven years and this was the first time he had been guilty of illegally plying for hire.
David James, defending, told the court his client had been a taxi driver for seven years and this was the first time he had been guilty of illegally plying for hire. Insert 'found' immediately before 'guilty' !! Insert 'found' immediately before 'guilty' !! 
|
|
| Author: | bloodnock [ Thu Apr 08, 2010 10:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Brummie Cabbie wrote: Almost a double post within the same post.
The amount of Stones in the story confused me.. 
|
|
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Thu Apr 08, 2010 10:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
bloodnock wrote: Brummie Cabbie wrote: Almost a double post within the same post. The amount of Stones in the story confused me.. You could have got stoned on this story!! 
|
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think your all seeing things
CC |
|
| Author: | edders23 [ Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
so CC you are now describing PH drivers as taxi drivers  not B*st*rds then
|
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Thu Apr 08, 2010 6:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
edders23 wrote: so CC you are now describing PH drivers as taxi drivers
not B*st*rds then Are you seeing things too
CC |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Thu Apr 08, 2010 6:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The fella made a mistake and the courts have made their decision. In my view he shouldn't lose his license after this one conviction. Is it better for us if he is on the dole?
Maybe he should be made to have CCTV put in. 
|
|
| Author: | volvoman [ Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Not wishing to be pedantic... but if Sgt Stone "followed in his own car", and not a marked Police Vehicle, "causing the taxi to stop", then (A) The driver was under no obligation to stop. (B) Any officer using their own vehicle on Police business is not insured to do so? 
|
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Sat Apr 10, 2010 7:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
volvoman wrote: Not wishing to be pedantic...
but if Sgt Stone "followed in his own car", and not a marked Police Vehicle, "causing the taxi to stop", then (A) The driver was under no obligation to stop. (B) Any officer using their own vehicle on Police business is not insured to do so? I suspect it was a sting operation. |
|
| Author: | edders23 [ Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
If he's self employed he's not entitled to dole BUT stop to think a minute maybe this is what our trade needs a toughening up of the rules instead of constant flooding of the market with drivers some sort of balance might be achieved |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Sat Apr 10, 2010 9:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
edders23 wrote: If he's self employed he's not entitled to dole BUT stop to think a minute maybe this is what our trade needs a toughening up of the rules instead of constant flooding of the market with drivers some sort of balance might be achieved
I just think everyone is allowed a second chance, and if it is the first time the chap has been before the courts then I think, on balance, he should be allowed to keep his license. |
|
| Author: | cabbyman [ Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
But, if, as you say, it was a sting, he may have had previous history. Strictly, unfair but Al Capone was caught on tax violations. |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
cabbyman wrote: But, if, as you say, it was a sting, he may have had previous history. Strictly, unfair but Al Capone was caught on tax violations.
He might have previous, but if so why hasn't the council acted and brought him before the courts sooner? |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|