Taxi Driver Online
http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

At £687 a smoke, fags are getting really expensive!!
http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17028		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Brummie Cabbie [ Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:04 pm ]
Post subject:  At £687 a smoke, fags are getting really expensive!!
Private hire driver Sabir Hussain flouted smoking ban three times in cab

5:54pm Thursday 23rd June 2011

A Bradford cab driver has been fined for flouting the smoking ban in his car, in what is believed to be the first Court case of its kind in the district.

Private hire driver Sabir Hussain, 54, of Girlington Road, had contravened the ban on two previous occasions for which he had been issued with fixed penalty notices, Bradford Magistrates Court was told.

Bradford Council took the decision to take Hussain to court when he flouted the ban for the third time.

He was fined £130 and ordered to pay £542 prosecution costs and a victim surcharge of £15.

Source; http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... n_his_car/
Author:  cabby john [ Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:14 am ]
Post subject: 
How can they justify prosecution costs as such! the fine I can understand being escalated...............but the prosecution costs cannot be me much more than the original.
Author:  jimbo [ Fri Jun 24, 2011 7:02 am ]
Post subject: 
cabby john wrote:
How can they justify prosecution costs as such! the fine I can understand being escalated...............but the prosecution costs cannot be me much more than the original.


The cost of flouting the law may be the least of his worries now....
Author:  Sussex [ Fri Jun 24, 2011 7:33 am ]
Post subject: 
cabby john wrote:
How can they justify prosecution costs as such! the fine I can understand being escalated...............but the prosecution costs cannot be me much more than the original.

He more than likely either pleaded not guilty, or didn't respond to council communication, leading to the council to prepare for a 'not guilty' trial.

The preparation work for that, alongside court and legal costs, would have been much more than £542.

So in effect the council tax payer has also lost out financially. :sad:
Author:  jimbo [ Fri Jun 24, 2011 3:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sussex wrote:
cabby john wrote:
How can they justify prosecution costs as such! the fine I can understand being escalated...............but the prosecution costs cannot be me much more than the original.

He more than likely either pleaded not guilty, or didn't respond to council communication, leading to the council to prepare for a 'not guilty' trial.

The preparation work for that, alongside court and legal costs, would have been much more than £542.

So in effect the council tax payer has also lost out financially. :sad:



Pleaded guilty by post, sentenced in his absence.
Author:  Sussex [ Fri Jun 24, 2011 7:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
jimbo wrote:

Pleaded guilty by post, sentenced in his absence.

Very strange then. :?
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/