| Taxi Driver Online http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| not issuing a badge for IN10 conviction http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=9840 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | richarduk2610 [ Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | not issuing a badge for IN10 conviction |
hi ive recently applied for a private hire licence with NW leics dist council. after 12 wks last weds my CRB check came back clean, foned licensing officer on friday expecting to go and pick up my badge but she said she needed to see me today regarding my IN10 No insurance conviction from aug 05. she said it could affect me getting a licence. Went to today for the interview, and she wasnt there sop another guy did it and he informed me that the criteria states that the council will not issue a licence for anybody that has had a IN10 conviction until the date of the conviction is 3 to 5 yrs old. I had to give reasons why i was caught driving without insurance, basically i had changed banks at that time and insurance were trying to take it from old account and when 2 payments had failed and they not informed me they cancelled my insurance, and when i was stopped by a routine check by cops for having a brake light out i discovered i wasnt insured when i contacted insurance company. Basically i dont see how it can be fair that a council can treat ppl like a criminal when a minor motoring offence is classed by the dvla as spent. its not like its a ban or dangerous driving or drink driving. opinions plz |
|
| Author: | skippy41 [ Tue Nov 04, 2008 1:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Get an appeal letter in ASAP to the council, then if that fails appeal to the magistrate court. Look out your bank statements that can back up what you say, I dont know if you had them as evidence when you got the conviction they may have had the case thrown out, you could still appeal against the conviction with a good solisitor |
|
| Author: | JD [ Tue Nov 04, 2008 1:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: not issuing a badge for IN10 conviction |
richarduk2610 wrote: Basically i dont see how it can be fair that a council can treat ppl like a criminal when a minor motoring offence is classed by the dvla as spent. its not like its a ban or dangerous driving or drink driving.
opinions plz If you are refused I suggest you appeal to the magistrates court. Under the circumstances there is every possibilty your license will be granted. Regards JD |
|
| Author: | richarduk2610 [ Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | SPOKE TO DIST COUNCILLOR |
i last night spoke with one of the local district councillors, i explained it all to him, and he was very sympathetic. he is going to speak with the licensing dept today and basically find out the correct guidelines to which they are working too. If it is correct that i fall into the guidelines to be granted a license, i think he is going to be basically asking them to do it |
|
| Author: | wannabeeahack [ Tue Nov 04, 2008 12:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
an Aug 05 conviction is over 3 years old anyway, unless my wall planner is a Doctor Who and im all wrong... personally id rather a driver with a declared and expired conviction get a badge than have unlicensed unplated unbadged "minicabs" be picking folk up... the driver granted a badge will be aware it can be taken off him/her if they break rules |
|
| Author: | richarduk2610 [ Tue Nov 04, 2008 1:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | MORE NEWS |
just had a word with the private hire taxi drivers assoc. he just emailed me a document called annex D, its a set of guidelines for the indsustry set out by the Home Office and Dept of Transport, and is the latest set of guidelines licensing offices should be working within. General policy states discretion may be applied if offence is isolated and there are mtigating cicurmstances. Guidelines on action to be taken where convictions are admitted are MAJOR TRAFFIC OFFENCES an isolated conviction should normally warrant a warning as to future conduct and driving advice expected of hackney and PHV drivers. More than one conviction of this type wirthin last 2 yrs should merit refusal and no further application be considered until 1 to 3 yrs from conviction. so the guy advised me to print this off and goand challenge my licensing officer in person, or email them stating the information i now have challenging them to make a decision in my favour |
|
| Author: | wannabeeahack [ Tue Nov 04, 2008 1:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: MORE NEWS |
richarduk2610 wrote: just had a word with the private hire taxi drivers assoc.
he just emailed me a document called annex D, its a set of guidelines for the indsustry set out by the Home Office and Dept of Transport, and is the latest set of guidelines licensing offices should be working within. General policy states discretion may be applied if offence is isolated and there are mtigating cicurmstances. Guidelines on action to be taken where convictions are admitted are MAJOR TRAFFIC OFFENCES an isolated conviction should normally warrant a warning as to future conduct and driving advice expected of hackney and PHV drivers. More than one conviction of this type wirthin last 2 yrs should merit refusal and no further application be considered until 1 to 3 yrs from conviction. so the guy advised me to print this off and go and challenge my licensing officer in person, or email them stating the information i now have challenging them to make a decision in my favour mmmm, its ok for HIM to suggest that, but you have to work with these clowns, er, council staff print it off, save it as back up in case you are turned down, dont ruffle feathers till you have to......... |
|
| Author: | JD [ Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
This might help. On an application for a licence to drive a private hire vehicle, an applicant must show that he or she is a fit and proper person to hold such a licence. If the application is refused by the local authority, the applicant may appeal to the magistrates' court (with a further appeal to the Crown Court). Before the courts, the local authority may seek to rebut the applicant's claim to be a fit and proper person by adducing evidence relating to an incident in respect of whi ch the applicant has been convicted, even though his or her conviction may have been quashed on appeal as being unsafe. Although the substance of what the local authority seeks to establish would (in such an instance) amount to a criminal offence, nevertheless the civil standard of proof would apply (R v Maidstone Crown Court, ex p Olson [1992] The Times, 21 May). __________________________________ |
|
| Author: | cabbyman [ Wed Nov 05, 2008 12:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
So, we're talking about the civil standard of 'balance of probabilities' rather than the criminal standard 'beyond reasonable doubt.' That, IMHO, raises the bar although I believe you should try to exhaust every avenue of negotiation before resorting to law. |
|
| Author: | JD [ Wed Nov 05, 2008 1:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
cabbyman wrote: So, we're talking about the civil standard of 'balance of probabilities' rather than the criminal standard 'beyond reasonable doubt.'
That, IMHO, raises the bar although I believe you should try to exhaust every avenue of negotiation before resorting to law. Although the civil standard of proof is applied the council has to set out its reasons why the license should not be granted to an impartial magistrate. Something which councillors don't have to do when they first refuse the application. Regards JD |
|
| Author: | wannabeeahack [ Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
If LA's were "employers" in the case of HC/PH badges, wouldnt The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 be the reference source? Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (reproduced by kind permission of NACRO) The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 enables some criminal convictions to become 'spent', or ignored, after a 'rehabilitation period'. A rehabilitation period is a set length of time from the date of conviction. After this period, with certain exceptions, an ex-offender is not normally obliged to mention their conviction when applying for a job or obtaining insurance, or when involved in criminal or civil proceedings. The Act is more likely to help people with few and/or minor convictions because of the way further convictions extend the rehabilitation period. People with many convictions, especially serious convictions, may not benefit from the Act unless the last convictions are very old. |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
As stated previously, I thought we were under the impression that no convictions are spent with taxi licenses ? CC |
|
| Author: | wannabeeahack [ Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
so a LA is, literally, a higher court than the "lower house" at westminster and can over-ride an AOP? wow, i wanna be a councillor |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
wannabeeahack wrote: so a LA is, literally, a higher court than the "lower house" at westminster and can over-ride an AOP?
wow, i wanna be a councillor Nope the LA license a person based on if they believe a person is fit and proper. CC |
|
| Author: | wannabeeahack [ Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
captain cab wrote: wannabeeahack wrote: so a LA is, literally, a higher court than the "lower house" at westminster and can over-ride an AOP? wow, i wanna be a councillor Nope the LA license a person based on if they believe a person is fit and proper. CC if they have rules to abide by then thats ok, but they should be open and made public, ive a neighbouring councils HC application form here which states in black and white what is acceptable and what is not. BTW, are badged sikh HC drivers allowed to carry a Kirpan?..... |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|