Taxi Drivers

Gerry T

Just curious on this, say a person at the end of a Taxi journey refused to pay, for what he felt was a legitimate reason. The taxi driver locks the door and drives the passenger to a police station and gets a guard to force the passenger to pay.
This has not happened to me and I'm not looking for legal advise. But is this practice one that could be challenged as illegal in some way, abduction or holding a person at force. I have heard a number of stories where this has happened and thought to myself that doesn't sound right. Is it just a matter of time before someone takes a case or have Taxi drives the right to do this ?

Grolschevik

Think this might be the context?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056972378

Gerry T

Grolschevik wrote: »

Think this might be the context?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056972378

Yes grolschevik, that's where it cropped up. But I have heard a number of other people saying a similar thing happened. It seems that some Taxi drives feel they can do this. And possibly they can. I just though in Legal Discussions that someone might know if they can do this.

valleyoftheunos

From a legal perspective I would consider the practice outlined to be dubious in relation to a refusal to pay for honestly held reasons. Where there had been an assault or similar by the passenger it may be different.

It would all come down to the circumstances, in some cases it could be justified, in others it may not. were the taxi driver to get it wrong it could be a very expensive mistake.

Red Log

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

From a legal perspective I would consider the practice outlined to be dubious in relation to a refusal to pay for honestly held reasons. Where there had been an assault or similar by the passenger it may be different.

It would all come down to the circumstances, in some cases it could be justified, in others it may not. were the taxi driver to get it wrong it could be a very expensive mistake.

If someone is too mean to pay a taxi fare they sure as hell are going to be too mean to go to a solicitor about it.
The guards have never charged any taxi driver in relation to doing this as taxis are an essential service needed to clear drunks from the streets at night.
There is a procedure to complain about taxis and most people use it if they have a genuine grievance. The penalties on the taxi drivers are very small, usually a few hundred euro.

valleyoftheunos

Red Log wrote: »

If someone is too mean to pay a taxi fare they sure as hell are going to be too mean to go to a solicitor about it.
The guards have never charged any taxi driver in relation to doing this as taxis are an essential service needed to clear drunks from the streets at night.
There is a procedure to complain about taxis and most people use it if they have a genuine grievance. The penalties on the taxi drivers are very small, usually a few hundred euro.

Ummmm perhaps....

Would you risk a very expensive pay out on a false imprisonment claim on such vague suggestions and assertions though?

Red Log

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Ummmm perhaps....

Would you risk a very expensive pay out on a false imprisonment claim on such vague suggestions and assertions though?

The chances of that are absolutely negligible. I'd be dammed if i'd let any chaepskate off with a fare just because of some theoretical risk. It is very obvious if the person is they type to sue but mostly well off people pay their fares.

doolox

If someone commits a crime and is caught do the shopkeepers, security etc not have the right to detain the perpetrator and call the guards in a timely fashion, or bring the perpetrator to the nearest known police station to press charges and make the person pay?

I know of other cases involving cafe and restaurant runners where people can be stopped leaving and made to pay up.

A person I know once pulled off after putting €10 worth of petrol in their tank without paying and the local Garda station made contact with them to effect payment.

I'd say lines would be crossed if physical force was used to stop a person leaving the scene or the car or premises but this would probably leave the person facing more serious penalties if and when caught by the relevant authorities.

valleyoftheunos

Red Log wrote: »

The chances of that are absolutely negligible. I'd be dammed if i'd let any chaepskate off with a fare just because of some theoretical risk. It is very obvious if the person is they type to sue but mostly well off people pay their fares.

Fair enough but that is all just your opinion, my opinion is entirely different and you have produced nothing to persuade me that yours is at all valid.

Pawwed Rig

Red Log wrote: »

The chances of that are absolutely negligible. I'd be dammed if i'd let any chaepskate off with a fare just because of some theoretical risk. It is very obvious if the person is they type to sue but mostly well off people pay their fares.

There are plenty of reasons why someone would refuse to pay other than being cheap (as it the context linked to in post 2).

LowKeyReturn

Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001

Making off without payment.

8.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods obtained or any service done is required or expected, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and with the intention of avoiding payment on the spot is guilty of an offence.

(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply where the supply of the goods or the doing of the service is contrary to law or where the service done is such that payment is not legally enforceable.

(3) Subject to subsections (5) and (6), any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is or whom he or she, with reasonable cause, suspects to be in the act of committing an offence under this section.

(4) Where a member of the Garda Síochána, with reasonable cause, suspects that an offence under this section has been committed, he or she may arrest without warrant any person whom the member, with reasonable cause, suspects to be guilty of the offence.

(5) An arrest other than by a member of the Garda Síochána may be effected by a person under subsection (3) only where the person, with reasonable cause, suspects that the person to be arrested by him or her would otherwise attempt to avoid, or is avoiding, arrest by a member of the Garda Síochána.

(6) A person who is arrested pursuant to this section by a person other than a member of the Garda Síochána shall be transferred by that person into the custody of the Garda Síochána as soon as practicable.

(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding £3,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or both.

Making off without payment is one of those odd ones which is subject to 'citizen's arrest' not by virtue of it being a serious offence buy by virtue of the statute outlined above.

By driving the person tot he Garda station I'd simply submit the taxi driver is complying with subsection 6.

valleyoftheunos

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001

Making off without payment.

8.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods obtained or any service done is required or expected, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and with the intention of avoiding payment on the spot is guilty of an offence.

(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply where the supply of the goods or the doing of the service is contrary to law or where the service done is such that payment is not legally enforceable.

(3) Subject to subsections (5) and (6), any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is or whom he or she, with reasonable cause, suspects to be in the act of committing an offence under this section.

(4) Where a member of the Garda Síochána, with reasonable cause, suspects that an offence under this section has been committed, he or she may arrest without warrant any person whom the member, with reasonable cause, suspects to be guilty of the offence.

(5) An arrest other than by a member of the Garda Síochána may be effected by a person under subsection (3) only where the person, with reasonable cause, suspects that the person to be arrested by him or her would otherwise attempt to avoid, or is avoiding, arrest by a member of the Garda Síochána.

(6) A person who is arrested pursuant to this section by a person other than a member of the Garda Síochána shall be transferred by that person into the custody of the Garda Síochána as soon as practicable.

(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding £3,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or both.

Making off without payment is one of those odd ones which is subject to 'citizen's arrest' not by virtue of it being a serious offence buy by virtue of the statute outlined above.

By driving the person tot he Garda station I'd simply submit the taxi driver is complying with subsection 6.

You missed the requirement for dishonesty, an honestly disputed fare would leave the driver on shaky ground were he to arrest someone in such a manner.

Pawwed Rig

What about section 5?

gimli2112

Years ago as a kid I got into a taxi with no money. I knew I had cash back at my flat. When we got there the driver threw a fit and threatned to take me to the guards.
He calmed down pretty quick and I paid him no problem.
People react way too quickly.

LowKeyReturn

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

You missed the requirement for dishonesty, an honestly disputed fare would leave the driver on shaky ground were he to arrest someone in such a manner.

It would but how would you dispute that a fare was due if you've just been riding in a taxi?

A more efficient way of defeating my argument would be Subsection 2.

Edit sorry might be Subsection 2.

LowKeyReturn

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

What about section 5?

Sub section 5 is easily over come by the Taxi driver explaining what he's doing. If the person refuses the driver has reason to believe the person is attempting to avoid.

valleyoftheunos

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

It would but how would you dispute that a fare was due if you've just been riding in a taxi?

A more efficient way of defeating my argument would be Subsection 2.

Edit sorry might be Subsection 2.

Doesn't need to be reasonably held on honestly (This is all a bit technical I realise)

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Sub section 5 is easily over come by the Taxi driver explaining what he's doing. If the person refuses the driver has reason to believe the person is attempting to avoid.

Maybe, maybe not, depriving people of their liberty unlawfully is very serious, I wouldn't want to have to argue it at all.

Pawwed Rig

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Sub section 5 is easily over come by the Taxi driver explaining what he's doing. If the person refuses the driver has reason to believe the person is attempting to avoid.

But it would depend on the circumstances. Similar to the shoplifter. If he stood there quietly waiting for the Gardai then the shop security would have no cause to detain him.
Also someone else mentioned that the penalty would need to be 5 years before an arrest could take place?

Also from your post in the other thread
"arrestable offence" means an offence for which a person of full capacity and not previously convicted may, under or by virtue of any enactment, be punished by imprisonment for a term of five years or by a more severe penalty and includes an attempt to commit any such offence;

LowKeyReturn

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Doesn't need to be reasonably held on honestly (This is all a bit technical I realise)

I'm happy to explore that if you have the time to explain. I still think if someone doesn't pay anything the taxi driver would be within his rights given that payment is required 'on the spot'. It's different if the dispute is something along the lines of 'It's not €30 it's always a tenner, here's a tenner'.

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not, depriving people of their liberty unlawfully is very serious, I wouldn't want to have to argue it at all.

I'm not disputing it's an unwise course of action for a number of reasons.

LowKeyReturn

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

But it would depend on the circumstances. Similar to the shoplifter. If he stood there quietly waiting for the Gardai then the shop security would have no cause to detain him.

He's essentially being detained by the security being present. That said the taxi driover scenario would probably amount to the civil definition of false imprisonment, which is a difficult standard to meet. However it's my contention that the taxi-driver is simply complying with the statute given he's in a car the most efficient way of getting the gardai involved (the spirit of the section if you will) is to get the person to the station as quickly as possible.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Also someone else mentioned that the penalty would need to be 5 years before an arrest could take place?

Ordinarily but read the section and my commentary on it.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Also from your post in the other thread
"arrestable offence" means an offence for which a person of full capacity and not previously convicted may, under or by virtue of any enactment, be punished by imprisonment for a term of five years or by a more severe penalty and includes an attempt to commit any such offence;

My post? That is the standard ordinarily but see the section and the bits I put in bold.

LowKeyReturn

“dishonestly” means without a claim of right made in good faith.

I'm lead to believe this allows the reading in of case law defining 'without a claim of right made in good faith'. I'm still at a loss to explain how, after riding in a taxi, you would make a good faith claim that no fare was due.

As always I'm happy to be enlightened.

valleyoftheunos

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

I'm happy to explore that if you have the time to explain. I still think if someone doesn't pay anything the taxi driver would be within his rights given that payment is required 'on the spot'. It's different if the dispute is something along the lines of 'It's not €30 it's always a tenner, here's a tenner'.

The offence is that someone dishonestly makes off without paying. if the passenger is acting honestly in refusing to pay, ie believes payment is not required because e.g. this isn't my requested destination/the driver threatened me/the driver is trying to over charge then the requirement for dishonesty is not satisfied and no offence has taken place, making any detention unlawful.

In fact if someone was sitting in the car they haven't made off at all!

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

I'm not disputing it's an unwise course of action for a number of reasons.

Apologies, I took you up wrong

LowKeyReturn

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

The offence is that someone dishonestly makes off without paying. if the passenger is acting honestly in refusing to pay, ie believes payment is not required because e.g. this isn't my requested destination/the driver threatened me/the driver is trying to over charge then the requirement for dishonesty is not satisfied and no offence has taken place, making any detention unlawful.

In fact if someone was sitting in the car they haven't made off at all!



Apologies, I took you up wrong

That's an excellent point! I think the point of argument would be whether or not lack of payment was dishonest and would come down to the specific circumstances.

I remember a thread here in relation to someone slapping the money down on the counter and walking out with some beers after 10pm and the argument being made that this wasn't dishonest and therefore was not theft. Some further reading and opinions on the subject lead me to believe that it would be classed as dishonest given the definition in the act.

Either way great to have a thread like this and thanks for your time in arguing it.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Gerry T

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

“dishonestly” means without a claim of right made in good faith.

I'm lead to believe this allows the reading in of case law defining 'without a claim of right made in good faith'. I'm still at a loss to explain how, after riding in a taxi, you would make a good faith claim that no fare was due.

As always I'm happy to be enlightened.

LowKeyReturn
I didn't want to make the question too complicated when posting, and was curious if there was a straight forward answer--like most everything its never straight forward !!
In another thread the position was taken that a Taxi was booked and at that time a street and house number was given. When the passenger questioned the driver why he was aimlessly driving around looking for the STREET and why could he not look at a map or SatNav the taxi driver got verbally abusive. The passenger asked to leave and was not prepared to pay, the driver grabbed the passengers bag and became threatening. The doors were locked and passenger taken to the police station against their will.
In this case I would think the passenger has grounds not to pay, physical and verbally abusive, threatening behaviour from a taxi that didn't fulfil his contract.
I would guess the passenger might have negotiated the sum due if the driver was reasonable, say knock off a couple of euro for the aimless driving etc...
But from the replies to date it would seem the passenger May have a case but could be setting precedence which sounds dicey.
If 2 people are arguing over payment in these cases I would have thought neither should affect an arrest on the other as they are involved and if proven wrong could be in serious trouble.
Thanks for all the replies/comments, much appreciated. I'm sure some day someone will challenge a Taxi driver which will cause a little storm in a tea cup !

LowKeyReturn

Gerry T wrote: »

LowKeyReturn
I didn't want to make the question too complicated when posting, and was curious if there was a straight forward answer--like most everything its never straight forward !!
In another thread the position was taken that a Taxi was booked and at that time a street and house number was given. When the passenger questioned the driver why he was aimlessly driving around looking for the STREET and why could he not look at a map or SatNav the taxi driver got verbally abusive. The passenger asked to leave and was not prepared to pay, the driver grabbed the passengers bag and became threatening. The doors were locked and passenger taken to the police station against their will.
In this case I would think the passenger has grounds not to pay, physical and verbally abusive, threatening behaviour from a taxi that didn't fulfil his contract.
I would guess the passenger might have negotiated the sum due if the driver was reasonable, say knock off a couple of euro for the aimless driving etc...
But from the replies to date it would seem the passenger May have a case but could be setting precedence which sounds dicey.
If 2 people are arguing over payment in these cases I would have thought neither should affect an arrest on the other as they are involved and if proven wrong could be in serious trouble.
Thanks for all the replies/comments, much appreciated. I'm sure some day someone will challenge a Taxi driver which will cause a little storm in a tea cup !

To be fair context is everything. That clearly isn't the right course of action by the driver.

Gerry T

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

To be fair context is everything. That clearly isn't the right course of action by the driver.

I know alot of drunk obnoxious people give Taxi men a very hard time. There are stories of Taxi drivers been beaten up, cars soiled or damaged and plenty of "runners". So its perfectly understandable to think Taxi drivers should bring people to police stations.
But in the case I mention, its plausible the driver pulled a 14hr shift, tired and faced with someone suggesting he can't do his job (not finding a dublin city centre street) got to him and he blew a fuse. But I do think the driver took a big chance here, if the passenger took this to court the driver may get off or may find himself in a big crock of crap.
As you say context is everything and initially I did purposefully leave out the detail as I wanted to see if someone knew if Drivers had Detention powers or i it was a grey issue, thanks for reply.

Losty Dublin

From somebody who was a taxi driver, the position is that a passenger has to pay the metered fare, unless a discount is offered. Should you be overcharged or disgruntled by the trip then you need to lodge a complaint to the National Transport Authority, they having taken over the roles of the Taxi Regulator. Taxi's are covered under a separate law so Criminal Justice Act won't come into the equation as easily as in retail situations.

OP, in a case like the linked post to the AH forum, if a driver is not supplied with the correct address by a passenger then there isn't a lot that can be done by him, other than if you are looking for a specific road or building like say a church or a pub or road. In a case where a driver claims to have not been paid then he has but one redress option at the time; to head to Gardaí post haste. More often than not the Gardaí will go with the driver but it's not exclusively the case.

Gerry T

Losty Dublin wrote: »

OP, in a case like the linked post to the AH forum, if a driver is not supplied with the correct address by a passenger then there isn't a lot that can be done by him.

In the other thread, the OP did give a clarification in a later post, stating that when the taxi was booked, a street name was given to the dispatch operator, but the OP didn't know how to get there.
Whether the driver should or should not have been paid is one question. But the thing I was curious about was, could the driver lock the doors, preventing the passenger from getting out of the taxi and taking the passenger by force to a police station.
You make a good point, possibly the passenger should have paid and then taken a case for the money back, but then the driver didn't know where the street was, he was driving around looking for it and didn't use a map/satnav or call the base for help. So in that circumstance should the passenger pay what the meter said ?

Losty Dublin

Gerry T wrote: »

In the other thread, the OP did give a clarification in a later post, stating that when the taxi was booked, a street name was given to the dispatch operator, but the OP didn't know how to get there.
Whether the driver should or should not have been paid is one question. But the thing I was curious about was, could the driver lock the doors, preventing the passenger from getting out of the taxi and taking the passenger by force to a police station.
You make a good point, possibly the passenger should have paid and then taken a case for the money back, but then the driver didn't know where the street was, he was driving around looking for it and didn't use a map/satnav or call the base for help. So in that circumstance should the passenger pay what the meter said ?

I don't want to get into a debate about the other threads specifics (Hey, its on AH so Lord knows how true it is ) but lets deal with what I can tell you as a whole.



On the first point, a passenger must pay the agreed or metered fare is the instruction of the 2003 Taxi act and it is repeated online and on information cards in cabs. How he seeks redress if shortchanged by a passenger is another story but locking the doors or chasing after and catching appears to be his few remedies.

Point two. From experience bases don't record and inform a specific address to a driver asides from mentioning a general road/building, partially because the data heads don't have enough space on them and partially because destinations can and do change when your passenger gets into the car. Even if it was given, a passenger needs to inform the driver first off so both parties are sure and no errors were made. Either way, common sense from both sides should be exercised as regards the end location early on and the other thread seemed to lack any.

hullaballoo

Losty Dublin wrote: »

On the first point, a passenger must pay the agreed or metered fare is the instruction of the 2003 Taxi act and it is repeated online and on information cards in cabs. How he seeks redress if shortchanged by a passenger is another story but locking the doors or chasing after and catching appears to be his few remedies.

You have been misinformed. The requirement to pay is subject to a reasonable excuse.

There is certainly nothing in "2003 Taxi act" that allows a taxi driver to falsely imprison a person, breach a person's constitutional rights or commit a criminal offence in order to force the passenger to pay.

It's a terrifying prospect if there are taxi drivers who believe they are entitled to lock their door and drive passengers where they like without limitation.

Either way, common sense from both sides should be exercised as regards the end location early on and the other thread seemed to lack any.

Now, you've said that you weren't going to debate the other thread, and then you post this. The passenger in the other thread said he knew the address, but not the directions. He told the driver the address but the driver, not knowing where he was going, decided to drive around "aimlessly", racking up the meter.

I don't know what other people's views are, but I would be reluctant to pay the fare in those circumstances.

OT, but shouldn't everyone be using Hailo by now anyway?

Losty Dublin

hullaballoo wrote: »

You have been misinformed. The requirement to pay is subject to a reasonable excuse.

No, Hullabaloo I haven't. The situation is that legally you must pay the metered (Or prearranged) fare at the end of the journey, subject to a discount being applied which you may ask for. There are mechanisms for complaints if one is overcharged and/or alleging bad treatment; a passenger deciding to discount or not pay the fare is not one a passenger can take on their own whim.

hullaballoo wrote: »

There is certainly nothing in "2003 Taxi act" that allows a taxi driver to falsely imprison a person, breach a person's constitutional rights or commit a criminal offence in order to force the passenger to pay.

It's a terrifying prospect if there are taxi drivers who believe they are entitled to lock their door and drive passengers where they like without limitation.

I agree with you that it's terrifying for it to happen. Now may I ask you this; drunk Johnny decides he isn't paying his fare or acting the mick for whatever reason so what would you expect a driver to do? When you are on the road at 2AM you can call the Gardaí out but you may be left waiting. Thankfully it never happened to me but I can see why some drivers would do it.

hullaballoo wrote: »

Now, you've said that you weren't going to debate the other thread, and then you post this. The passenger in the other thread said he knew the address, but not the directions. He told the driver the address but the driver, not knowing where he was going, decided to drive around "aimlessly", racking up the meter.

I don't know what other people's views are, but I would be reluctant to pay the fare in those circumstances.

I didn't want debate it; I read page one and that was it for me. I've heard 102 stories like it about bad trips where nobody is at fault and everybody's to blame. That said, it's up to the passenger to give the driver the correct address when they get in or else it gets messy and it's the drivers job to know how to get there

hullaballoo wrote: »

OT, but shouldn't everyone be using Hailo by now anyway?

Not yet as not everybody have smartphones but it's catching on and it works well.

hullaballoo

Losty Dublin wrote: »

No, Hullabaloo I haven't. The situation is that legally you must pay the metered (Or prearranged) fare at the end of the journey, subject to a discount being applied which you may ask for. There are mechanisms for complaints if one is overcharged and/or alleging bad treatment; a passenger deciding to discount or not pay the fare is not one a passenger can take on their own whim.

This could easily turn into a yes-you-have-no-I-haven't debate. Particularly because I'm about to say; yes, you have been misinformed.

If you read the section I have linked to in my last post, which is the only section in the Taxi Regulation Act 2003 that deals with passengers' obligations sets out the requirement to pay fares (sub-section 3). Sub-section 5 creates an offence such that "a person...who, without reasonable excuse, does not comply with subsection (3) is guilty of an offence." The penalty for this offence is a fine up to €1,500 (Section 44(2).)

That means a passenger has not done anything wrong if s/he has a reasonable excuse. The passenger - having refused to pay his or her fare with a reasonable excuse - is then also entitled to make a complaint to the regulator (although, this is one of the most mind-boggling exercises one can take on.)

I'm not about to speculate as to the watermark for "reasonable excuse" but I imagine false imprisonment and assault are up there.

Losty Dublin

hullaballoo wrote: »

This could easily turn into a yes-you-have-no-I-haven't debate. Particularly because I'm about to say; yes, you have been misinformed.

If you read the section I have linked to in my last post, which is the only section in the Taxi Regulation Act 2003 that deals with passengers' obligations sets out the requirement to pay fares (sub-section 3). Sub-section 5 creates an offence such that "a person...who, without reasonable excuse, does not comply with subsection (3) is guilty of an offence." The penalty for this offence is a fine up to €1,500 (Section 44(2).)

That means a passenger has not done anything wrong if s/he has a reasonable excuse. The passenger - having refused to pay his or her fare with a reasonable excuse - is then also entitled to make a complaint to the regulator (although, this is one of the most mind-boggling exercises one can take on.)

I'm not about to speculate as to the watermark for "reasonable excuse" but I imagine false imprisonment and assault are up there.

I am well aware of the mention of "reasonable excuse" but it isn't offering you an option to not pay in the event of dispute but a defense for not doing so. Indeed the NTA website tells us to pay in the event of a dispute and to lodge a complaint.

Some guidance on what is "reasonable excuse" would be useful for consumers and drivers alike if only for clarity and yes, the procedure for complaint these days is painful and a barrier to complaining in the first place.

Gerry T

Losty Dublin wrote: »

I am well aware of the mention of "reasonable excuse" but it isn't offering you an option to not pay in the event of dispute but a defense for not doing so. Indeed the NTA website tells us to pay in the event of a dispute and to lodge a complaint.

Some guidance on what is "reasonable excuse" would be useful for consumers and drivers alike if only for clarity and yes, the procedure for complaint these days is painful and a barrier to complaining in the first place.

In practical terms if you pay it wouldn't be worth your time to dispute it. Not if you think you were over charged by say 5euro.
The Taxi driver may have a contract with the NTA but can that be unilaterally applied to a passenger ? If a passenger feels he's been "robbed" surely he can do what's necessary. That could be inform the driver and negotiate a price reduction or get out of the taxi if the driver is abusive.
The question posted was can a taxi driver lock doors and bring you to a police station. Nothing posted to date has shown that they do have this power. If they have an issue with a passenger they can call the police to come out to them and if the passenger tries to run off maybe and just maybe they can do a citizen arrest. A police office can make a call about payment or not, and this would be down to circumstances. In a case where a driver took a fare to a street he didn't know its location and refused to call the base for help or have/use a map would be enough for me to get out and not pay if the driver was aimlessly driving about.

hullaballoo

Losty Dublin wrote: »

I am well aware of the mention of "reasonable excuse" but it isn't offering you an option to not pay in the event of dispute but a defense for not doing so. Indeed the NTA website tells us to pay in the event of a dispute and to lodge a complaint.

Yes, that's correct. It is a defence to a criminal charge. So, you've taken the argument outside of the confines of the 2003 Act. We're left with ordinary principles of contract law, then.

That makes things a whole lot messier because you're not going to resolve the question on the spot here either. If a passenger is dissatisfied that the driver hasn't performed his obligations under the contract, why should he pay? Or, should he part-pay on a quantum meruit basis? How is that to be decided between two people who are clearly unable to communicate well with one another (referring to the example from the AH thread)?

Fundamentally, does the refusal to pay give the taxi driver the right to do what the driver in the AH thread did? Whatever about the other questions, the answer to that is no.

It doesn't matter what the NTA or RSA or Dept of Transport say, they don't make the laws and no one is bound by what they say on their website.

Some guidance on what is "reasonable excuse" would be useful for consumers and drivers alike if only for clarity and yes, the procedure for complaint these days is painful and a barrier to complaining in the first place.

I fully agree with that. However, I would say that a reasonable excuse would include interference with your constitutional rights.

I would also suggest that the law needs to make clear what exactly the procedures when a dispute cannot be resolved before the person leaves the taxi. Under no circumstances should a driver believe s/he is entitled to restrain or prevent the passenger from leaving the car or refuse to allow the passenger to get out of the car when asked. That is where the trouble really starts for the driver.

Losty Dublin

hullaballoo wrote: »

Yes, that's correct. It is a defence to a criminal charge. So, you've taken the argument outside of the confines of the 2003 Act. We're left with ordinary principles of contract law, then.

That makes things a whole lot messier because you're not going to resolve the question on the spot here either. If a passenger is dissatisfied that the driver hasn't performed his obligations under the contract, why should he pay? Or, should he part-pay on a quantum meruit basis? How is that to be decided between two people who are clearly unable to communicate well with one another (referring to the example from the AH thread)?

Fundamentally, does the refusal to pay give the taxi driver the right to do what the driver in the AH thread did? Whatever about the other questions, the answer to that is no.

It doesn't matter what the NTA or RSA or Dept of Transport say, they don't make the laws and no one is bound by what they say on their website....



...I fully agree with that. However, I would say that a reasonable excuse would include interference with your constitutional rights.

I would also suggest that the law needs to make clear what exactly the procedures when a dispute cannot be resolved before the person leaves the taxi. Under no circumstances should a driver believe s/he is entitled to restrain or prevent the passenger from leaving the car or refuse to allow the passenger to get out of the car when asked. That is where the trouble really starts for the driver.

The crime is specified in the 2003 act though. It is a matter for a Garda to make a call in the event of a dispute if it can't be sorted on the spot. Contract law doesn't come into it.

We both are agreed that clarity is needed here on some issues; however there are times when a driver needs assistance to deal with uncooperative passengers. Not paying in your local store and the security have some leeway. Cause grief in a pub or club and the staff have some leeway. On the same basis a taxi driver is entitled to some leeway if and when wronged.

hullaballoo

Losty Dublin wrote: »

The crime is specified in the 2003 act though. It is a matter for a Garda to make a call in the event of a dispute if it can't be sorted on the spot.

But the point is that there is a period of time between which the passenger wishes to leave and when the Gardaí arrive. No one can detain the passenger for that time. Powers of detention arise only in limited circumstances (even for Gardaí) because taking someone's liberty away from them is regarded as very serious. Even if there happened to be a Garda nearby while the dispute was ongoing, the Garda could only keep the passenger and driver long enough to take details to follow it up. There are no powers to arrest or detain for the offence.

Contract law doesn't come into it.

It very much does because it is the contract that give rise to there being an amount payable. It might not be a written, signed and sealed contract, but it is a contract, nonetheless.

LowKeyReturn

hullaballoo wrote: »

But the point is that there is a period of time between which the passenger wishes to leave and when the Gardaí arrive. No one can detain the passenger for that time. Powers of detention arise only in limited circumstances (even for Gardaí) because taking someone's liberty away from them is regarded as very serious. Even if there happened to be a Garda nearby while the dispute was ongoing, the Garda could only keep the passenger and driver long enough to take details to follow it up. There are no powers to arrest or detain for the offence.

Why can't they be detained under the 2001 Act, or does it not apply due to the 2003 Act?

Pawwed Rig

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Not paying in your local store and the security have some leeway. Cause grief in a pub or club and the staff have some leeway. On the same basis a taxi driver is entitled to some leeway if and when wronged.

In the event of someone being detained for shop lifting I would suggest (based on reading this forum and others rather than a specific legal knowledge) that the security guards tend to be very sure of their position as regards the shoplifter before they will attempt to apprehend. Where they lose sight of the suspect for even a few seconds they tend to err on the side of caution and let them walk away. I have heard (anecdotally) of shops paying out large amounts of cash where wrongful accusations are made.

Further, with respect to bouncers, they usually have cameras and multiple witnesses to back up a detention of someone who may have gotten violent or can back each other up (less than ideal I know).

By this standard a taxi driver is at sea. It is his word against mine, no independent witness, no cameras, no smoking gun (other than the meter charge). If the customer in this case is in good standing (sober without any priors) I would think the taxi driver would be on very shaky ground should the person decide to pursue the issue.

Interesting discussion guys

hullaballoo

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Why can't they be detained under the 2001 Act, or does it not apply due to the 2003 Act?

Do you mean the Theft and Fraud Act? Specifically, do you mean making off without payment? There is no inherent power to detain under that act either. There is a power to make a "citizen's arrest" in certain circumstances, but I wouldn't like to be the taxi driver who tests the legal waters by purporting to affect an arrest for that offence. There are so many elements that you are required to prove:

1. The person knew payment on the spot was required or expected;
2. the person dishonestly made off without paying;
3. the person intended not to pay.

The highlighted parts are the mental elements (mens rea). But the taxi driver in this example is likely to come undone on the basis that the passenger did not make off (actus reus). He couldn't because he was locked into the car.

All of the above are subject to the exception that there is no offence where the payment (for a service) is not enforceable and it's certainly an open-ended question whether the payment is due where a taxi driver has not provided the service he's demanding payment for.


Edit: Sorry, here's a link to the CJ(T&FO)A 2001 s. 8 (making off without payment) for anyone curious.


Edit 2: LKR, I meant to point out that it seems asynchronous that there would be a specific offence provided by the Taxi Regulation Act 2003 if the above was intended to apply. It's certainly something that could do with clarification. Obviously, there are strong arguments for both sides.

LowKeyReturn

To be fair I'm thinking more along the lines of someone jumping out and doing a legger, the taxi driver grabbing them and taking them to the station.

Would the could the actus reus not be them attempting to leave the vehicle without making payment. I have to admit I'm not great on incohate offences or whether that would even qualify.

As a separate issue, I beg to differ (probably unwisely!) that a taxi driver would have to make out the proofs you list. The standard he would have to meet would be;

(3) Subject to subsections (5) and (6), any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is or whom he or she, with reasonable cause, suspects to be in the act of committing an offence under this section.

Now surely this covers a taxi driver in the situation I describe, assuming a completed actus reus is present?

I may very well be confusing the power of arrest and the power of detention.

hullaballoo

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

To be fair I'm thinking more along the lines of someone jumping out and doing a legger, the taxi driver grabbing them and taking them to the station.

Oh right, but that's not what happened per the AH thread (taking the OP at face value). He was effectively detained against his will, then brought somewhere else again against his will, without ever even having the chance to make off.

Would the could the actus reus not be them attempting to leave the vehicle without making payment. I have to admit I'm not great on incohate offences or whether that would even qualify.

According to the section the "actus" is making off. There's no inchoate offence from my reading of the Act. Inchoate offences are limited to certain circumstances where certain provable acts can be deemed to be an attempt to commit a crime. IMO, making off without payment is so difficult to prove as it is, an inchoate offence would be absolutely pointless.

As a separate issue, I beg to differ (probably unwisely!) that a taxi driver would have to make out the proofs you list. The standard he would have to meet would be;

(3) Subject to subsections (5) and (6), any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is or whom he or she, with reasonable cause, suspects to be in the act of committing an offence under this section.

Now surely this covers a taxi driver in the situation I describe, assuming a completed actus reus is present?

This taxi driver has a phenomenal grasp of the law at this stage! In order to suspect someone to be in the act of committing an offence under the section, surely you'd have to know what the offence is.

I think I should make it clear that I'm looking at this solely from the point of view of the circumstances outlined in the AH thread. Obviously, altering the circumstances changes the landscape dramatically. If it was the case that someone does a runner, I think the taxi driver is entitled to make chase and if possible apprehend the passenger. In the AH thread, the taxi driver was demanding payment of an amount he was not entitled to, in my view, and he ought not have presumed he was entitled to act as he did.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

hullaballoo

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Impossible to know without site of the policy, but it's unlikely. (Although, Google tells me that in Australia, allianz offer it under the personal injuries part: http://www.allianz.com.au/business/small-business-insurance/risks/public-product-liability)

Ed: Better googling tells me it's also available here: http://www.allianz.ie/Other_Products/SME_Packages/Retail/ Up to €15,000 on that policy. There are actually a few companies offering it. Just allianz was the first. (Not a shill.)

LowKeyReturn

hullaballoo wrote: »

This taxi driver has a phenomenal grasp of the law at this stage! In order to suspect someone to be in the act of committing an offence under the section, surely you'd have to know what the offence is.

To be fair I haven't read the AH thread I started off in this thread before I knew there was a thread in AH. I completely agree with you on the circumstances being key. In fact subsection 2 makes reference to what I'm sure is illegal contracts but could possibly applied to cases where the taxi-driver is overcharging?

I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that a taxi driver/shop keeper would be aware of their powers of arrest especially if they've been robbed on numerous occasions.

Many thanks for taking the time to reply to me directly, it's much appreciated.

Losty Dublin

hullaballoo wrote: »

Impossible to know without site of the policy, but it's unlikely. (Although, Google tells me that in Australia, allianz offer it under the personal injuries part: http://www.allianz.com.au/business/small-business-insurance/risks/public-product-liability)

Ed: Better googling tells me it's also available here: http://www.allianz.ie/Other_Products/SME_Packages/Retail/ Up to €15,000 on that policy. There are actually a few companies offering it. Just allianz was the first. (Not a shill.)

As it happens, I was insured with Allianz and it was part of the schedule of coverage; Axa offered it as well when I was with them.

Am reading through the AH thread and Boy am sorry I did now

hullaballoo

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

To be fair I haven't read the AH thread I started off in this thread before I knew there was a thread in AH. I completely agree with you on the circumstances being key. In fact subsection 2 makes reference to what I'm sure is illegal contracts but could possibly applied to cases where the taxi-driver is overcharging?

I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that a taxi driver/shop keeper would be aware of their powers of arrest especially if they've been robbed on numerous occasions.

Many thanks for taking the time to reply to me directly, it's much appreciated.

Not at all, I certainly think this is one of the more interesting points I've seen discussed here. I would certainly emphasise that the circumstances are key. There will be more clear-cut cases.

I also want to point out that I don't think the actions of the passenger in the AH thread are legally sound either. I am looking at this from the point of view that the greater wrong is false arrest/detention. As a passenger, I would want to be sure of my grounds for refusing to pay the fare on the meter, but I would raise an issue with the driver if he sought to charge me the additional fare accruing after he got lost. It's happened to me a few times that a driver has gone awry and just knocked a few quid off the final price and it's been fine.

I just think that any driver in the situation where they are contemplating locking doors etc. has to be very sure of their legal footing because the legal risk is a suit for false imprisonment. There is also the safety risk that the passenger whose liberty you have just taken away might react badly and the driver might be in immediate danger.

Regulating this is a near impossible task, but there are precautions both sides can take to ensure the mutual risk is offset and my experience is that a smartphone is a worthwhile investment on the taxi front.

Losty Dublin

hullaballoo wrote: »

Not at all, I certainly think this is one of the more interesting points I've seen discussed here. I would certainly emphasise that the circumstances are key. There will be more clear-cut cases.

I also want to point out that I don't think the actions of the passenger in the AH thread are legally sound either. I am looking at this from the point of view that the greater wrong is false arrest/detention. As a passenger, I would want to be sure of my grounds for refusing to pay the fare on the meter, but I would raise an issue with the driver if he sought to charge me the additional fare accruing after he got lost. It's happened to me a few times that a driver has gone awry and just knocked a few quid off the final price and it's been fine.

I just think that any driver in the situation where they are contemplating locking doors etc. has to be very sure of their legal footing because the legal risk is a suit for false imprisonment. There is also the safety risk that the passenger whose liberty you have just taken away might react badly and the driver might be in immediate danger.

Regulating this is a near impossible task, but there are precautions both sides can take to ensure the mutual risk is offset and my experience is that a smartphone is a worthwhile investment on the taxi front.

Finally read through the thread on AH. I get the feeling that the OP has left something significant out of the story though on the whole there isn't a doubt that they were badly treated.

Hullabaloo, are you aware of the 1963 act?

hullaballoo

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Finally read through the thread on AH. I get the feeling that the OP has left something significant out of the story though on the whole there isn't a doubt that they were badly treated.

That's possibly the case, hence my caveat I'm taking the OP in the AH thread at face value.

Hullabaloo, are you aware of the 1963 act?

There are 35 Acts of the Oireachtas from that year. In respect of which of those 35 are you enquiring?

Losty Dublin

hullaballoo wrote: »

That's possibly the case, hence my caveat I'm taking the OP in the AH thread at face value.


There are 35 Acts of the Oireachtas from that year. In respect of which of those 35 are you enquiring?

Apologies; I meant the 1963 SI regarding public service vehicles. Have a look at it if you get a chance.