Taxi Driver Online

Where to start with this pi$h?

Licensing councillors can be bad enough at times, but this is something raised at a full council meeting. And if you think licensing councillors are clueless...

Anyway, one gives the impression there shouldn't be any rules at all (friends and family by the looks of it), while another seems to think that if rejected applicants can reapply within 12 months then Pendle will turn into Gaza

At least they've referred it to the proper licensing councillors. And if they have anything like a clue, then it'll all be dismissed as a storm in a teacup...


Scrapping taxi licence rule blocked amid fear of 'rapists, drug dealers and violent men'

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/scrapping-tax ... 08816.html

Scrapping a taxi rule which stops refused applicants re-applying for a licence could have seen rapists, drug dealers and violent men repeatedly trying to gain a licence, councillors have been told.

Emotions ran high when when two Pendle councillors called for a rule to be removed, which currently stops rejected taxi applicants from submitting a fresh bid in 12 months of a refusal.

The bid was rejected but prompted wide debate. Taxi safety and vehicle checks have been raised regularly at Pendle Council meetings. Councillors Faraz Ahmed and Sajjad Ahmed put forward a motion calling for the 12 month rule on failed applicants to be removed at the latest full council.

Coun Ahmed, who has been a taxi committee chairman, said: "It's very important that a change should take place. Not being able to reapply within 12 months is unfair. We need to work with taxi drivers and the industry."

But Lib-Dem Coun Tom Whipp said: "I assume there is a process to review and appeal decisions, if there's a feeling that the protocol has not been followed? It's right that people should not come back-and-back to overturn a properly made decision. Twelve months seems reasonable."

Pendle True Independent Coun Yasser Iqbal said: "Taxi applicants face a system where council officers are often the judge, jury and executioner. Officers are not perfect and sometimes decisions can be wrong.

"I had a constituent who could not work for four or five months. He had four mouths to feed. It was serious. He appealed to a magistrates' court but there are delays. Also I am the son of a taxi driver. My dad could not work for some time when I was younger. It was a genuine struggle. There are human stories behind these cases."

But Conservative Con Kieran McGladdery, also with taxi committee experience, said: " I think this is one of the most dangerous motions ever. There could be speeding motorists, drug crimes, sexual offences, assault and battery - any kind of crime with some applicants. We've had applicants who've kicked ten bells out of people. Who have drugs convictions. Or who had run someone over in a taxi.

"There is an allowance that says if someone did something wrong in the past and it has lapsed, it can be dealt with. But removing this section would allow the rapist, the drug dealer, people who were refused for good reason, to re-apply. Taxi licensing officers would be swamped with the worst-of-the-worst reapplying."

Conservative Coun Neil Butterworth said: "Licensing is here to protect the public including children. We get reports on applicants' histories from officers and I totally believe what officers tell us. If we removed this policy, we'd have failed applicants coming back every two weeks. The system is already overloaded. I am totally against this."

Independent Coun Mohammed Iqbal said: "Coun McGladdery speaks with such rhetoric you'd think Nigel Farage was here. I served on the taxi committee for years. We never gave a licence to a rapist, a drug dealer or someone who batters their wife. It's a slur on councillors and officers.

"Also Coun Butterworth says he relies purely on officers. But that suggests there is no point in being a councillor? If so, he should give up."

Coun Iqbal said the current system relied too much on written statements. Many applicants were better at talking about their situations. He added: "The taxi driver is a member of the public too. He lives in Pendle. He is to be listened to too."

Instead of scrapping the taxi policy, councillors asked the taxi committee and the executive for their views.

So what were the 'human stories' behind what they did? And while it was no doubt 'serious' that someone was out of work, how serious was what he did to mean he was debadged in the first place?


Highly unlikely. But if it was a significant problem then it would be easy money for the council to simply reject those re-applicants with little effort. The application fees could be used to reduce the licensing fees for successful drivers


Are people really this clueless, or is this just workaday highly exaggerated political rhetoric?

this is a sign of things to come it's not so much a windbag councillor; more one that represents a particular community wanting one law for them and another for everyone else.

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

Indeed.

If a driver believes he has been dealt a bad hand by the council he can appeal to the courts.

_________________
IDFIMH

PENDLE TAXI DRIVERS MAY BE GET FLEXIBILITY OVER 12-MONTH BAN ON RE-APPLYING FOR A LICENCE

https://www.central.radio/news/east-lan ... a-licence/



Pendle taxi arrangements are being reviewed including whether drivers should be strictly prevented from re-applying for a licence within a 12-month period, if their application is refused or their licence revoked.

Taxi safety checks and the standards of individual drivers and larger taxi companies have all been the focus of debate at Pendle Council.

Spot-checks on some taxis in the past year or so revealed ‘unacceptably high failure rates’. Proposals for change have included drivers being required to use a mobile phone app for regular vehicle checks, maintenance training, penalty points and licence reviews for drivers who breach the rules, and extra facilities to check vehicles.

Licensing enforcement and the tone of relationships between elected councillors and the taxi trade have also been debated.

Some councillors, such as Kieran McGladdery and Neil Butterworth, say a tough, no-nonsense approach is needed for public safety and change by the trade. But others, such as Faraz Ahmed, have called for a ‘less aggressive’, more co-operative style.

A new taxi committee chairman, Brian Newman, was appointed recently following the May local elections.

And at the last full council meeting, councillors Faraz Ahmed, a former committee chairman, and Sajjad Ahmed called for the removal of one part of the current taxi licensing policy, called policy 5.4. It currently prevents a taxi licence application being submitted within 12 months of a refusal.

Pendle councillors referred the removal request to the taxi licensing committee and the executive. Their recommendations will then go back to all councillors.

A new taxi committee report outlines the current licensing system and includes potential action points or changes. It says there is no evidence to support a total removal of the 12-month rule. But some level of discretion might be introduced.

It says the reason given by councillors for removal was that Pendle Council officers may not always make the correct decision. But it sets out different scenarios and roles of officers and elected councillors.

It adds: “Our convictions guidelines policy was adopted in 2022 and is the recommended policy by the Department for Transport. This is the policy we refer to when making decisions and we require good reason to depart from these when making decisions on applications.

“Of the decision made and of the 11 challenged in court over the last two years, the courts upheld all but three council decisions. The robustness of the decision-making process is demonstrated by the courts.”

But it adds: “However, it is recommended that the policy wording is amended to state that further applications will ‘not normally’ be granted until 12 months has elapsed from the original refusal or revocation. This will allow for an element of discretion rather than only a refusal.”

The policy was put in place for sound reasons, the report adds. It is operating successfully and decisions made have been proved to be ‘sound and robust’. The decision-making scheme involves elected councillors through the taxi committee chairman being consulted on all proposed decisions.

The report adds: “The [total] removal of the 12-month limit will bring more pressure on the committee to re-look and reverse decisions that the council has already made. This will inevitably bring inconsistency in decision which, in turn, will promote more unnecessary and unjustified early re-submissions.

“There seems no empirical evidence that the current policy is not working and no justification for altering a process that is robust and works well. However, because the current ‘must wait’ 12 months phrase takes away an element of discretion, slightly altered wording is recommended.”

Pendle Council’s executive is set to look at the report at its next meeting.

_________________
IDFIMH

so that's 27.27%(approx) of cases where the courts found against the council. Even more worryingly they were challenged 11 times probably at considerable cost to rate payers. it would be interesting to know how often other councils get such challenges or if it's a lot more common in the area of the UK with probably the worst vehicle check failure rates.

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

Thanks for emphasising that your figure is approximate - it should actually be 27.272727%

(Which is also approximate, because it's actually 27.27 repeated - it's a 'recurring' or 'repeated' decimal )

But, yes, 11 in two years seems a huge rate of court challenges for an authority like Pendle. About 500 vehicles total over both codes, and 600 badges.

They seem to have some difficulties with their processes and procedures there