Taxi Driver Online

Call for action after taxi appeal delayed

Court action which could lead to a Keighley taxi firm being forced off the road has been put off again for three months.

In the wake of the latest adjournment a leading councillor has attacked the delays as unacceptable. Cllr Andrew Mallinson wants tough action to stop 1st Choice operating as a private hire company.

He also called for a Bradford Council clampdown on suspected rogue taxi firms across the district. Ist Choice, based in Church Street, is allegedly flouting conditions of its licence issued by Bradford Council.

The council claims 1st Choice allows people to walk into its office to book taxis despite its licence allowing only phone bookings. In council documents seen by the Keighley News, drivers allegedly hinder local businesses, park indiscriminately and are aggressive to rival taxi firm Metro Keighley. The report also records police concern that if the allegations are true then 1st Choice's 30 drivers could be driving without insurance.

Bradford Council initially closed down 1st Choice in May, this year, for breaching conditions of its planning permission. The firm immediately appealed and the council allowed the firm to reopen pending the outcome of the appeal at magistrates' court.

Since then the case has been adjourned several times - the latest last Wednesday - and is due to be dealt with in November.

Craven Cllr Mallinson, Bradford's former regeneration chief and a leading light of Keighley Transport Watch, said the delays were "ridiculous". He said: "It's right and proper there's an appeal process to go through. This whole issue about taxi enforcement has been rumbling for years and it's time we clamped down and ensured operators were operating legally."

In May, at the time of the initial 1st Choice closure, Keighley police inspector Mark Allsop compiled a report on the firm's activities. He said police had received numerous complaints about 1st Choice, including alleged harassment, anti-social behaviour, parking and obstruction.

In the report Insp Allsop said: "Reports have also been received that 1st Choice have been using a telephone booking office as a general walk-in office and collecting passengers which due to private hire regulations would lead to the drivers using their vehicles without insurance and hence lead to public safety issues and concerns."

Azad Khan Yousef, 1st Choice's boss, has strongly denied claims his firm was acting improperly. He insisted the firm had public liability insurance and all his drivers had their own insurance to use their vehicles as taxis.

He said: "Bradford Council and Metro are determined to shut us down. They are making false allegations. We park in our yard. We will not park outside during the day during business hours. "We have no signposts outside our office, nothing to say where we are. People still knock on our door but we say they have to phone us up."

John Blackburn, the council's assistant transportation director, said the council had repeatedly tried to clamp down on 1st Choice. It resisted the original planning application for the office but was overturned by the Government's Planning Inspectorate.

The council then imposed conditions when it gave the operator's licence, including 1st Choice keeping its office door locked at all times.

_________________
IDFIMH

_________________
IDFIMH

I wonder what they are? Perhaps telephone bookings only?

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.

Where does it say in the act that a punter cannot just walk into an office and book instead of phoning???????
What are they doing wrong in the eyes of the law, apart from possibly sticking 2 fingers up at the councils daft and idiotic rules



WTF not just go and check the drivers insurance, and the way I see it there is nothing to stop a driver picking up from the point of booking, he has not just picked up a flag

I suspect it may be a condition they have put in place because of the location of premises.

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.

Or planning permission?

CC

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

An office opened up down here a few years back and where not allowed walk in work because they were located on a 2 lane strech of road where stopping to pick up would block the flow. (or something to that effect)

So I'm assuming planning officers can make stipulations like this on taxi/ph offices.

Yes they can. Their powers are substantial.

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.

That maybe the case, but surely people must realize that the punters will still go to the office, especially if it's in a central location, and knock on the door for a car.

And if there are cars outside then the knock bit will go by the by.

_________________
IDFIMH

I think this will be an interesting case but at the end of the day I suspect it will come down to the council accusing the license holder of breaching planning conditions. In which case it will do very little to enhance the already cluttered menagerie of licensing case law.

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.

But is breaching planning laws a reason to take someone's operator's license away?

To me the planning folks should have had a brain in the first place and realized what the outcome would be.

_________________
IDFIMH

I could understand the firm being branded as rogue if they were pulling some of the tricks that the less scrupulous operators get up to such as ranking up outside hotels/clubs touting etc. but is taking booking through the door of your own premises "rogue behaviour" after all what is the point of having business premises if not as a point of contact for your customers ?

It's hard to comment on the issue without knowing the full facts? It will no doubt be an interesting case but its a pity we have to wait so long for it to come to court.

I might add that during that time the license holder might move to different premises and circumvent any trial, who knows?

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.