MILTON Keynes Council is tightening up its licensing procedures for hackney carriages and private hire vehicles in the borough, after a taxi driver convicted of rape and other serious sexual offences was given a new licence.
The council’s chief executive Carole Mills said: “On August 12, Mike Hainge, our newly appointed service director with responsibility for public realm – which includes taxi licensing – launched a review into taxi licensing arrangements. The lawyers from Steven Feakes & Associates cvil litigation can provide one with the necessary legal aid.
“Meanwhile, Peter Marland – leader of the council – received a letter from a member of the public raising specific concerns about taxi licensing in relation to a particular driver. This was promptly passed on to relevant officers on August 20.
“Enquiries were immediately made into the circumstances raised in the letter, and it was established that we had a licensed taxi driver with convictions for rape and other serious sexual offences.
“Therefore, officers revoked the taxi licence of the driver in question on Friday, August 22, and an investigation started to establish the circumstances in which this individual was granted a licence.
“This investigation has identified the following:
The driver in question applied for a taxi licence in February 2010. An enhanced Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) disclosure dated November 2010 showed that he had four convictions for serious sexual assault, including rape. The applicant was therefore interviewed by officers.
The application was scheduled to be considered by the regulatory sub committee held on January 26 2011, but was adjourned to a later date to allow the applicant to organise and submit additional evidence in support of his application.
The committee reconvened on April 11 2011, and had before it information that made clear the nature of the offences.
This included a report and interview transcript.In its deliberations, the committee took into account a very strong character reference given by a serving councillor, who described himself as a friend, and vouched as to the driver’s good current character and family circumstances.
Surprisingly, given the nature of the offences, a licence was granted and, following receipt of the necessary paperwork and payments, the licence was issued in September 2011.
In January 2012, we were contacted regarding the driver in question, and were provided with further detail about the nature of the offences. In summary, this driver had been convicted of four serious sexual offences, which happened over three separate occasions, with an accomplice, and he had received a substantial custodial sentence.
As a result of receiving this information, the driver in question was required to attend an interview with officers, who suspended his licence with effect from April 24 2012.
A regulatory sub committee was held on May 21 2012 to review the suspension.
The Committee had before it the papers from the original meeting, the enhanced CRB details provided by Thames Valley Police and the transcript of the latest officer interview with the driver. Inexplicably, the committee lifted the suspension and the driver was able to continue to operate as a private hire driver.
The driver in question was also licensed as a hackney carriage driver from March 25 2014.
On August 22 2014, officers conducting the review I mentioned earlier revoked both of his licences.
Meanwhile, the wider review instigated by the council has identified a number of less serious, albeit concerning issues relating to other taxi drivers.
Of course, this situation is very concerning indeed, so the council has taken the following action:
This week, a review of taxi drivers with declared convictions has been undertaken. This review has identified a further seven individuals who give us cause for concern from the 1,300 individuals who have taxi licences in Milton Keynes. Of them, one has surrendered his licence and plates and we have invited the remaining six drivers to come in for interview. We will take action dependent on the outcome of those interviews.
A detailed review of all Milton Keynes taxi licence holders is underway and will be completed as soon as possible. If this review identifies any drivers with undeclared information of concern, their licences will be suspended pending formal hearing.
For all new applications, we have strengthened our oversight and approval processes to ensure sound decision making.
We have produced a new draft Taxi Licensing Policy, which will be considered by Cabinet at the earliest opportunity. All councillors serving on the Regulatory Sub-Committee and relevant officers will undergo a full training programme on that policy.
In the case of drivers contracted by the council to transport children, additional checks are applied. Drivers with convictions have an interview with a specially trained senior manager and only if we are satisfied with the information gained at that interview is that driver allowed to work on the council’s contracts.
What has happened in the past is simply not acceptable. And that’s why, on this coming to light, the Council has taken rapid steps to ensure the safety of our citizens travelling by taxi or private hire vehicle. The process we have put in place for all future licence applications will not allow this situation to happen again.
It’s important to remember that the vast majority of hackney carriage and private hire drivers in Milton Keynes are decent, law-abiding and hardworking people. Our taxi drivers are an important part of our local economy and provide a vital service to our community. I’m hoping that drivers will work with us to secure public confidence in the days and weeks ahead.”
However, if anyone has concerns about any criminal activity that they want to report, they should ring Thames Valley Police Enquiry Centre on 101.”
Peter Marland, leader Milton Keynes Council, said:
“As leader of the council since May 2014, with officers, I took immediate action to revoke the licence of the driver in question and thank officers for their diligence in undertaking a detailed wider assessment of the situation. Officers are working hard to bring the final phase of this taxi licencing review to a swift conclusion to ensure that the people of Milton Keynes can be confident when getting into a Milton Keynes taxi.
It’s the first duty of any council to strive to keep citizens safe and, in this situation; it is highly regrettable that such significant errors have been made.
It is clear that members of the regulatory sub committee exercised very poor judgement in granting a licence to the driver in question, given the nature of the offences. I can confirm that Cllr McKenzie, who was part of the second Committee meeting referred to earlier, has tendered his resignation as vice chair and member of the regulatory committee with immediate effect.
I’m pleased to confirm that we have cross-party support in relation to the action we have taken and how this will work in future. We are committed to being honest and open.”
Cllr Edith Bald, leader of the Conservative Group said: “I was shocked to learn what had happened and immediately called for this driver’s taxi license to be revoked. Passengers’ safety should be the primary consideration in all taxi licensing decisions.
“The action current officers have taken is right and proportionate and I am very supportive of both the prompt revocation of the license of the driver in question and the wider review.
“I am confident that officers are working to swiftly bring the review to a conclusion.
“Given the serious nature of the situation, I called for the elected members responsible to resign from their positions and I am pleased that they have done so.”
Furthermore, Cllr Douglas McCall, leader of the Liberal Democrat group, said: “It is right that the council has taken action to revoke the licence of someone with convictions of this nature.
“I was very concerned to hear about the decisions made by the committee at the two meetings.
“Cllr Burke has today resigned as chairman of the licensing and regulatory committee and sub committees and has also stepped down from the committee.
“Cllr Shafiq also recognises his error of judgement in speaking in support of the driver in question, and has resigned from the role of mayor. I am very pleased that steps are being taken to tighten up procedures in future.”
Here is another great article written by Tim Fenton of Zelo Street
Out there on the right, car and passenger matching service Uber is seen in an unquestioningly positive light: typical is Mark Wallace, former stalwart of the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance, who has journeyed via the IoD to ConHome. “[Uber] Drivers work for themselves under better conditions with a better income” he proudly declared, although the name of the comparator was not given.
But then, Wallace and his fellow Clever People Who Talk Loudly In Restaurants have been seduced into believing such ideas, without bothering to examine just where the real power in this enterprise lies. And where it lies is not with the drivers, as those Stateside are starting to find out. Without any collective bargaining ability, they have to do what they are damn well told.
Uber gets into price wars; it therefore lowers prices. Driver earnings take the hit. As to insurance requirements, the New Yorker noted “in San Francisco, for instance, taxi operators have to provide a million dollars of liability coverage for their cars at all times; Uber, until recently, covered vehicles only when they held a passenger. But Uber, and companies like it, argue that they’re completely different”.
Behold the belief system of the right …
Yes, Uber claims that it is different, that it should not play by the same rules, and that it should therefore not be subject to all those inconvenient fuddy-duddy olde-worlde regulations. So Uber has recruited the likes of David Plouffe, former advisor to the first Obama presidential campaign. His job will “include lobbying the government to come up with policies that are more favorable to Uber’s interests in the first place”.
But note that the talk here is of Uber, not its drivers, and that should surprise nobody: the little guys at the sharp end are mere cannon fodder. This was demonstrated when “an Uber driver hit and killed a six-year-old girl in San Francisco. The driver’s Uber app was turned on, but he wasn’t carrying a passenger, so Uber said that he, and not the company, should be held responsible”.
… along with their inverted view of corporates
That driver may not have thought about such a scenario when he signed up. But you can bet your bottom dollar that Uber and its lawyers did. All those drivers are a mere means to an end, as Plouffe’s first task is to help launch the Uber API, to enable the integration of hotel chains, airlines, restaurants, and travel advisors. Oh, and Starbucks, of course. All this benefits the multi-billion dollar corporate.
To comprehend what Uber is about, its aggressive stance, and determination to have rules and regulations re-drafted to suit Itself Personally Now, the last people to consult are the unfortunate drivers. As he and his pals continue to back the corporate Goliath against the one-man and one-woman Davids who drive black cabs around London, perhaps Mark Wallace will understand the reality of the situation.
It is an understanding some of us have already grasped.
THE UK’s biggest taxi app is coming to Yorkshire, with thecompany behind it confident it can avoid the controversy which has dogged a similar service in London.
Kabx says the app will change the way people book cabs forever.
It was initially launched in Manchester in the summer, and is now available in Leeds, London, Birmingham, Liverpool and Dublin.
The service allows people to ‘jump the queue’ by ordering and tracking a cab on their smartphone.
Kabx has partnerships directly with private hire companies, and says this will mean it can call on a large fleet of cabs.
A similar service, called Uber, operates in London and led to thousands of cabbies in the capital protesting that the mobile app was used to work out the cost of rides.
They said it was tantamount to a taxi meter, which only black cabs are legally entitled to use in London.
Uber’s steady expansion has seen it operate in more than 40 countries, but there have been protests from other drivers, and Berlin recently banned Uber, saying it had concerns for public safety if passengers were transported in ‘unlicensed vehicles’.
Uber has said it will appeal the decision.
The app had earlier been banned in Hamburg over licensing concerns, and there have been other protests in Madrid and Paris.
Earlier this month Margaret Hodge, chairwoman of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, wrote to London mayor Boris Johnson demanding to know why Transport for London allowed cars to take bookings through the Uber app without a licence to operate in the capital.
Because the app is operated via a company in the Netherlands, which makes the bookings, takes the payment and issues the receipt, corporation tax is payable in Holland, rather than the UK, she said.
Uber said it complies with all applicable tax laws and pays taxes in all jurisdictions.
Transport for London said its role is to license and regulate the taxi and private hire industry in London and it has no powers in relation to an operator’s corporate structure and how or where they pay tax.
Kabx says it has almost twice as many cabs in its fleet as Uber. It says its partnerships with the private hire companies means it “can call on a much bigger fleet of cabs compared to other taxi apps like the much-talked about Uber, which only has deals with individual drivers”.
When it launched in Manchester it had a fleet of more than 2,000 taxis.
The service works by matching the caller with the cab nearest to their location via their smartphone’s GPS. Users can book the closest cab to them, and get a quote of the cost plus the option of paying by cash or card.
Kabx marketing manager James Kelly said: “The key differentiator of our app is the size of our network. Having so many cars allows us to pick up most customers in just minutes, far faster than the nearest competitor.” The Kabx app is available on both Apple and Android app stores.
TfL has announced that a re-design of a notorious London roundabout will start next year after four fifths of those consulted backed the plans.
The scheme for Elephant’s nothern roundabout entails converting the one-way system to two-way traffic, replacing extensive subways with wide pedestrian crossings, and better interchange between the bus and the tube. TfL is also to investigate the feasibility of limiting the speed limit to 20mph as part of the works.
However, following concerns raised during the consultation, the original proposals for a segregated cycle lane soundbound on the Elephant and Castle link road have been scrapped and replaced with a 4.5m wide bus lane.
This will include new road markings to highlight to cyclists the location of potential conflict points where buses will be pulling in and out of the lane.
TfL will in addition work with Southwark Council and the new shopping centre owners to identify whether footways could be widened, allowing “cycle provision to be reassessed in future”.
Southwark and TfL are also looking at alternative cycling routes on local roads, to see if existing ‘bypass options’ for cyclists avoiding the roundabout can be made more direct.
As I approached Coventry Street late on Thursday night, I observed five minicabs parked behind the Taxi rank with three quarters of their vehicles actually on the pavement.
Amazingly there were four uniformed police officers, complete in hi-visibility coats standing next to the cars, but apparently saying nothing. The officers didn’t seem to be in the least bit fazed by this blatant abuse of pavement obstruction.
I put on the rank and approached the officers. Explaining that in London, since the GLA act of 1974, there has been a blanket ban on cars parked with one or more wheels on the pavement and I politely asked to have these vehicles moved off. One officer said he would attend to this and so I made my way back to my cab.
But as I watched, the officers were approached and spoken to by the doorman from the Lap dancing club, Premium Lace. The officers then retreated back to their original positions. I got back out of my cab and again confronted the officers.
I was told they were unwilling to assist moving the vehicles as they had been given permission “by the door man”, to wait for girls leaving the club as this was a dangerous area. One officer believe it or not, then started to lecture me on the danger of young girls getting into strangers cars in the west end thinking they were, in his words, “Taxis”. I pointed to the rank full of licensed Taxis and said “how hard is it for the doorman to escort the girls the few feet to the point of the rank, should they require a Taxi?”.
The officer just shrugged his shoulders and stood behind his colleagues.
I then asked the assembled officers, when the law had been changed to give doorman the power to give permission to touts to park wherever they like.
I also tried to reason with the officers, but they flatly refused to move on the illegally plying for hire touts.
I spotted three Westminster traffic wardens on the corner of Rupert Street, so I approached and found they were only too pleased to confront the minicabs touts, which quickly sped off. I thanked the wardens and they returned to Rupert Street. But seconds after they turned the corner, a new batch of touts parked on the pavement.
I told the police officers if they wouldn’t help, then I would speak to their sergeant who I could see watching the proceedings, standing by the mobile police HQ on Wardour Street.
I was completely unprepared for what happened next.
I walked up to the sergent and asked if he had a minute. He said “what’s the matter” and I then gave full details of how his officers were refusing to move the offending minicabs parking on the pavement. I also outlined the Act of 1974. He just looked at me and said he had “better things to be getting on with”.
I insisted he enforced the law and reminded him he was a public servant, paid to enforce the law which I now wanted him to do.
Then to my surprise he got very aggressive, started pointing his finger in my face and shouting at me. I reminded him that as a police office he had no right to be this aggressive and shouldn’t be shouting at me in this manner, in a public place. But he just walked away.
I couldn’t take his number, as I had left my glasses in the Taxi. Unfortunately by the time I got back to the cab, retrieved my glasses and armed with a pen and notepad, he had disappeared
So there you have it. Boris’s 100 bobbies on the beat are there for no more than an impotent, hi-vis PR operation, with no intention of being the zero tolerance model of the NYPD this operation was based on.
But More Seriously:
These officers, by giving permission for minicabs to illegally park outside a club, are sanctioning their approval of open touting. By doing so, they are part of the problem of escalating crime, in Central London, instead of being part of a solution.
The safety of the public is being compromised on a nightly basis by the actions (or should I say non actions) of these officers.
We already know TfL enforcement and compliance fail to enforce the Private Hire Vehicles act of 1998, (when it comes to illegal plying for hire). They instead concentrate mainly on Taxi drivers documentation, Badge and Bill checks.
We now have conclusive proof that the Police are turning a blind eye wholesale when it comes to touting and illegally plying for hire and are seemingly aiding and abetting touts and sexual predators alike, in the West End.
With approximately 25 minicab related serious sexual assaults (the Met’s own estimate) happening weekly, this is a shameful affaire.
When questioned about the Met’s non-existent enforcement on radio, the Commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe just said, Taxi drivers also commit offences every day and left it there.
Editorial Comment:
Later, I went back and spoke at length with the Doorman of Premium Lace who informed me the club doesn’t have a satellite office licence . He freely admitted quite a few of the cars parking outside his club are touting. While we were speaking, he did ask a number of cars to wait in Rupert Street and said he had inspected their PDAs to make sure they had bookings. But as soon as the booked cars move, they are replaced by touts.
Touts are freely operating, completely unhindered by police officers who just stand about watching and doing nothing.
This is not a victimless crime. It has led to a steep rise in serious sexual assaults including rapes.
Why are Westminster City Council not complaining about the police non-action?
The main reason for the London wide blanket ban on pavement parking is in respect of not only obstruction, but damage caused to pavements, which then have to be repaired at a cost to the rate payers.
Recent Comments