Taxi Driver Online

This matter was first covered in 2009 under the thread;

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtop ... as+jeffery

Safety breach taxi driver finally off the road

Published at 09:15, Saturday, 08 January 2011

A Carlisle cab driver who was stripped of his taxi licence for safety breaches is finally off the road following a two-year legal battle.

James Douglas Jeffery, 41, had his licence revoked by the city council’s regulatory panel in January 2009.

Routine inspections found a catalogue of faults on his 2001-registered black cab.

The steering was suspect on six occasions, there were five counts of faulty brakes and lights, four instances of defective bodywork and three suspension faults.

The most recent inspection revealed two illegal tyres.

Councillor David Morton, who chairs the panel, said at the time that Mr Jeffery was not a “fit-and-proper person” to hold a hackney carriage licence.

Mr Jeffery’s appeal was dismissed by Carlisle magistrates in September 2009.

He appealed again to the Crown Court where Judge Barbara Forrester upheld the council’s decision last May.

His final throw, an application for judicial review, was dismissed by the Administrative Court on December 21.

Mr Jeffery, of Welsh Road, Harraby, was able to continue driving a taxi while his appeals were pending but did not use the black cab that was found to be faulty.

His licence has now been revoked and he has been ordered to pay £500 towards the council’s legal costs.

Source; http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/safet ... rPath=news

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

£500 towards legal costs! I think he got off lightly.

_________________
Grandad,

One of the Captain's mates bites the dusk!!

More work for the Captain now that there's one less on the rank!!

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

If I remember rightly he's been in the news before with the faults on his cab. Mind you that's what you get with de restriction.

_________________
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Believe me, don't get Mercury X2

and thats a 2001 "black cab"

doesnt say much for the older ones, I can 1st plate 1 up to 10 years old/any colour here

If a person can't maintain his cab......does that affect his fitness to drive a cab?

CC

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

Strange case,why didnt they just condemn his vehicle in the first instance.Thats what happens here fail on to many faults and its off.Why does this affect him as a driver ?

This was the point of the case......I'd like a copy of the judgement to be honest.

I cannot see how the drivers fitness and propriety can seriously be questioned......he was a driver not a mechanic.

As I said to him at the time.....just because your sh*t at maintaining your cab.......it doesnt mean you cant drive.

Perhaps other owner drivers should take note of this one, because if you take your cab to a garage for a service before test......and the vehicle fails.......possibly through no fault of your own.....the chances are you'll lose your license in the future.

CC

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

The point is that he was found not to be a 'fit and proper' person to hold a licence.

You need to be 'fit and proper' to hold a hackney carriage proprietor licence and a hackney carriage driver licence.

It is about the person as a whole that the 'fit and proper' relates to not which licences it relates to.

Therefore, the 'fit and proper person' must and does relate to both licences.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

he couldnt be arsed to pay for repairs, he endangered the public, if anyone had been harmed or killed by his negligence he would have been up on charges

So surely this should have been stopped by the council,why keep giving him more chances ?What i dont understand why if the cab was a danger was he still allowed to drive it ? Sounds suspicious to me,where was the suspension of his licence ?ect ect

In this case, perhaps - for the reason below - but more generally I don't think that's the case. For example, I think there are cases of disqual drivers being allowed to keep props licences?

And, of course there's the recent Edinburgh case where the driver was deemed OK to drive PH but not drive HC (or vice versa?), although that doesn't make sense to me, nor I suspect the vast majority of councils.

Thus there can be a fundamental difference between owing and driving as regards being fit and proper, and in Edinburgh even for driving the code is deemed relevant.

Wonder if Edinburgh differenetiates between proprietor codes as regards being fit and proper

_________________
Caledonian Cabbie

His negligence?

CC

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

On the other hand, under road traffic law the driver is responsible for the fitness of the car.

You're kind of saying that if a car has bald tyres, obviously dodgy brakes or lights then the driver isn't responsible?

_________________
Caledonian Cabbie

Nope I'm not saying that.

I'm saying if a driver takes a vehicle to a garage and the garage then tells him the cab has been serviced and ready for test.......should the driver have his license revoked?

Because thats what I'm reading from posters on here.

CC

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