Taxi Driver Online

Gedling taxi driver escapes driving ban after overcharging customers

A cabbie was excused a driving ban after overcharging passengers picked up outside the Queen's Medical Centre – and having no insurance to cover them.

JPs allowed father-of-three Tahir Zia to stay in business even though he now has 12 points on his licence – the total which usually leads to a six-month disqualification.

Nottingham magistrates heard on Wednesday that his licence only enabled him to be flagged down or work as a private hire driver in the borough of Gedling.

He was not allowed to wait outside the QMC and was caught when he charged £30 to take two people and a wheelchair back to Gedling.

The customers claimed it was double the expected charge and lodged a complaint.

That led to council staff identifying the taxi driver as Zia, 41, of Grassington Road, Aspley, the court heard. He was found guilty of using a hackney carriage without insurance and plying for hire in Nottingham without a licence on April 15 last year.

After an application by solicitor Chris Brewin for Zia, magistrates agreed not to impose a driving disqualification because it would cause "exceptional hardship" to the driver's family.

If you’ve previously been sold a Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) policy alongside a loan, mortgage or credit card, there is a chance you may have been mis-sold and have a right to reclaim £1,000s in compensation.

But presiding magistrate Phil Oxlade warned him: "What it means is you have to drive very carefully. Until November of this year, there will be 12 points on your licence.

"If you are brought back to court you will be on a totter and in all likelihood you will be disqualified." Zia was fined £375 with £200 prosecution costs and a government surcharge of £37.

Six points were added to his licence, adding to the six already on for earlier offences which included speeding and breach of traffic signals.

Francesca Whyley, for Gedling Borough Council, said the authority received a complaint about the fare charged for a journey back from the QMC.

"The meter for payment read £30.40. The passengers questioned it, saying it seemed high. It should have been £15. They paid the driver £30.

"He did not have a licence to pick up fares without prior arrangement in the City of Nottingham. He understood he could pick people up in the Gedling boundary," she added.

Zia told the court he had been a taxi driver for five years and earns £200 weekly. The family's income was increased by £369 when taking account of his wife's pay and state benefits.

Read more: Railway cleaner touched pregnant train passenger

If he lost his taxi licence, he said that it would be impossible to find work and get his children to school. His solicitor Mr Brewin told the court: "Without his income, the family income is much lower than the outgoings."


Read more: http://www.nottinghampost.com/Gedling-t ... z44Pu9XPbd

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

those magistrates just swallowed a lot of horse poo

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

At least someone had the stones to report him about the fare.

If it hadn't been for the overcharging he would have not been caught at all.

Now he has been dealt with the courts will the council take further action
on the over charging /rip off fare ?

Technically it wasn't overcharging. The job wasn't wholly within his borough so if he had agreed the price with the customer first then it would not be overcharging. Plying for hire in an area that he was not licensed to ply is the offence and by doing so he possibly invalidated his vehicle insurance although the passenger would still be covered. Now I don't suppose for one minute that there was any agreement on the fare before the commencement of the journey so the driver used his meter. What tariff he used is a different matter. It would seem that it was not the correct tariff for the time of day.
The question that I don't know the answer to is this. By accepting the drivers plea of exceptional hardship and thus not disqualifying the driver, have the magistrates put the council in a difficult position should they wish to revoke his license?

_________________
Grandad,

The answer is No.

The Council may not "Try" the case again, the Magistrates have done that and you can't be tried for the same offence twice. (There is a rare exception in Murder etc. nowadays.)

The Council Committee, Board, or whatever it's called in Gedling, should have the question "In Light of the Conviction (Because it is a Conviction) does the Driver remain "Fit and Proper" to hold the Licence?"

If they decide to Suspend, Revoke or refuse to Renew (if it has expired) his Licence, the Driver can then appeal.

It would not be unusual for Revocation and any subsequent appeals failing. It would also not be unusual for a suspension.

The hands of the Council are not tied by a Magistrates decision as to punishment.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

Being found guilty of overcharging,using a vehicle without correct insurance proves to the Council that he is "not a fit and proper person" to hold a TAXI or Private Hire drivers license.

The undue hardship plea had nothing to do with being a licensed driver as he can seek employment elsewhere but probably find it hard to be included on some companies insurance due to the points.

The Council should revoke his license.

I would tend to agree with that. But the "without correct insurance" is because the pick up was wrong in the first place. So, more accurately he was not abiding by the rules of his Licence. In my opinion it means he should be considered as "Not fit and proper" and the Council can "Suspend, revoke or refuse to renew" as a result.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

Not sure that's correct.

The issue of the effect it had on the driver isn't what they decided on, it's the effect it could/would have had on his family.

The JPs applied the law as it's laid down, also following case law.

Of course there is nothing stopping the council removing his license.

_________________
IDFIMH

He'll hop over the border to Bolsover and get plated and badged up there.

He'll be able to drive on appeal.

Unless he gets more points.

_________________
IDFIMH