Taxi Driver Online

Two drivers prosecuted for using private hire vehicles as taxis in Darlington

Two drivers have been prosecuted after being caught on CCTV cameras illegally plying for hire in Darlington town centre.

In both cases they had been driving private hire vehicles, which by law can only be pre-booked and must not ply for hire, this means they must not be hailed in the street by members of the public and are not allowed to use designated taxi ranks.

Beniamin Benali, 60, of Selbourne Terrace, Darlington, was given a conditional discharge for one year and ordered to pay costs of £75 and a victim surcharge of £26 after pleading guilty to illegally plying for hire at Peterlee Magistrates’ Court earlier this month (2 October).

The court was told that at 2.24am on February 5 this year, Darlington Borough Council’s control room team identified a private hire vehicle appearing to take a fare without prior booking.

CCTV footage showed a vehicle being approached by a man in Tubwell Row and, after a brief conversation with the driver, the man walked around the vehicle and pulled out a banknote.

Once inside the car, he was seen passing the note to the driver, who then drove off with the passenger inside.

The driver was identified as Benali and no prior booking had been made through a private hire operator. Benali pleaded guilty, but in mitigation said he picked the man up to assist him.

The court also heard the case of Liviu Oros, 53, of Forester Street, Darlington, who was found guilty in his absence of illegally plying for hire and having no insurance.

Magistrates were told that at 4.25am on February 3 this year, the council’s control room team again identified a private hire vehicle appearing to take a fare without prior booking.

It was seen by CCTV cameras in Skinnergate, where it was approached by five young men, and shortly afterwards it picked up four of the men in Woodland Road. The driver was identified as Oros and no booking had been made through his private hire operator.

Further investigations by the council’s licensing officers, also found that insurance for the vehicle only covered pre-booked fares.

Orus was fined a total of £1,320 for the two offences and was ordered to pay £150 costs and a victim surcharge of £528 and six penalty points were added to his licence.

Councillor Amanda Riley, Darlington Borough Council’s cabinet member for stronger communities, said: “Those illegally plying for hire undermine the trust and safety placed upon the licensed taxi trade, and I’d like to thank our control room operators for their vigilance in spotting these incidents.

“Darlington Borough Council's licensing team will act upon any information it receives and I hope these convictions send out a message to those people who wish to operate outside the law that we will seek prosecutions to protect the public and the legitimate taxi trade.”

Only hackney carriage vehicles are allowed to pick up passengers from the street or from taxi ranks without prior bookings.

For passengers to travel in private hire vehicles, they must go through an operator who records all the details of the journey. This is a legal requirement and is there to protect the public.

Hackney carriages in Darlington can be easily identified, as they are red with a taxi roof sign. Their front and rear plates will also identify them as hackney carriage along with a door sign.

Private hire vehicles may be any colour other than red and do not have a roof sign.

_________________
IDFIMH

Typical Council makes a mess of prosecuting 2 drivers for same offence, they both would have invalidated their insurance, if I was the second guy I would appeal and reference the first case and its outcome.

If I'm reading it right, the insurance offence wasn't led for Benali. Oros might have a point if it had been and Benali wasn't convicted.

Interesting approach to use CCTV and the PH booking records to establish the plying offence. Glasgow enforcement rarely do much about it unless there's a cop there with them - the passenger is often used as a witness (which they obviously don't like). Any other PHCs at the same lark quickly disappear until the coast is clear.

This CCTV method means they could be caught without even realising they've been seen.

Does seem very odd - first driver down only £100 or so, and that's it.

Second driver down £2k, and six points on his licence

One factor may be that the second driver didn't turn up to court

An also the insurance angle, which it looks like the first driver wasn't prosecuted for. Maybe a council cock-up, as Heathcote says, or maybe there's a more genuine explanation.

But very different outcomes for what are effectively identical crimes under very similar circumstances

I think those drivers should have taken account of the rights they would have been advised on and said nothing.

Without them admitting what they did this would have never made it to court.

_________________
IDFIMH

Mitigation is after conviction and before sentence. Pled guilty/found guilty.

The way it reads, they may well have said nothing before it got to court.

The second driver was found guilty in his absence.

I hadn't noticed that the first driver pled guilty, but the second one didn't (thanks, Mr XH558) and didn't even turn up to court.

Which helps further explains the disparity in punishments for effectively identical offences. First driver pled guilty and effectively got off with a slap on the wrist.

The second driver didn't even turn up to court, was found guilty in his absence, copped a £2k punishment in terms of fines and costs etc, and six points on his licence

So maybe he was uncooperative from the start, while the first driver played ball and got off pretty lightly.

And which may also explain why the first driver wasn't prosecuted for the insurance offence - he kissed ass from the start.

Stranger things have happened

What would have happened if the drivers decided to go 'no comment'?

In my view nothing.

The council had evidence of two people getting into two separate PHVs, with one of them appearing to pass a note to the driver.

That in itself is not enough evidence for a conviction.

_________________
IDFIMH

Yet convicted they were.

Although we're all reading between the lines of a news item, 'going no comment' is during a police interview. It doesn't look like there was any interview.

They pled or were found guilty of 'plying for hire' - not fully defined in law AFAIK. But Benali and Oros were seen on CCTV taking there-and-then passengers when there was no booking record. So operating as HCs when they were licensed as PHCs.

Something like that anyway.

Not sure precisely what evidence is required for a conviction, but clearly there's conclusive evidence of the drivers picking up passengers, and the operators have obviously been approached and haven't been able to proffer evidence of a booking, therefore...

(Which just repeats what Mr XH558 says, essentially, although I don't think police will necessarily be involved in stuff like this, so any interviewing would be done by LOs, presumably. Thus like the private prosecutions undertaken by likes of the Post Office and RSPCA. I think prosecutions in Scotland would require police involvement rather than simply local authority officers, but not 100% sure about all that...)

For what it's worth this is the original Darlington BC news release, which I read to see if there were any additional details or other nuances that might shed some light, but can't see anything. In fact, if you want to see a straight copy and past job on a newspaper's website then this must be about it, although did notice that the word 'again' had been inserted in the press's paste job with regard to the second CCTV control room operation :

https://www.darlington.gov.uk/your-coun ... m/?id=2137

I pick up people all the time without an operator’s booking.

Doesn’t mean criminal offences have occurred, just that people have got into my car that haven’t been booked through a ph operator. Hire and reward activities are just that, they don’t encompass everything that a driver does in his life.

Those drivers were convicted a) because one admitted the offence and b) the other numpty didn’t turn up to court maybe in the hope that the fairies would acquit him.

In relation to the insurance matter for the first one, I suspect it was timed out. As we know councils take ages to do anything, therefore I wouldn’t be surprised if it took more than the six months a prosecuting authority has to lay a charge.

Or he accepted a fixed penalty and the matter was dealt with out of court.

_________________
IDFIMH

I’m not sure the evidence the council had from the CCTV would even meet the ‘balance of probabilities’ threshold let alone the ‘criminal’ one.

If it was sufficient evidence why isn’t every other council undertaking similar activities? It’s not as if street CCTV is a new venture.

Look if the drivers are guilty they deserve exactly what the court gave them, it’s just that in my view had they kept quiet in interview we wouldn’t be having this discussion in this thread.

What a solicitor would ask the council is to prove the person wasn’t a mate or family, or if the council contacted all the other operators to prove no booking. The second bloke could have said it was a family member who owed him a tenner and had just got it from the cashpoint.

I could go on but we have to remember the council has to prove everything beyond reasonable doubt, the driver has to prove nothing.

_________________
IDFIMH

You're right, balance of probability in front of a committee, beyond reasonable doubt in regards to a criminal prosecution

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