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?