Summons for refusing to pay taxi fare (Take 2)

Gastropod77 · 23-11-2017 10:05PM #1

Hi,
I hailed a MyTaxi to go to work in the morning and halfway through the journey I asked the driver to change course slightly. He then stopped the car and told me to get out. I did so and then he jumped out of the cab and grabbed me by the lapels shouting at me to pay the fare that had accrued. I refused and called the Guards.
The Guards arrived 45 minutes later and I made a complaint for assault against the driver and I still refused to pay after the Guard asked me to pay.

I recently received a summons to appear to the Criminal Court for being 'in contravention of Article 56 of the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) Regulations, 1963
Contrary to Section 82 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 (as mended by Section 7 of the Dublin Transport Authority (Dissolution) Act 1967 provides the offence. Section 102 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 (as amended by Section 18 of the Road Traffic Act, 2006) provides the penalty.'

TheChizler · 23-11-2017 10:06PM

Had you a legitimate reason for not paying?

Tbh once you get a summons it's solicitor time.

CIARAN_BOYLE · 23-11-2017 10:07PM

Unfortunately taxi drivers are allowed to end the journey at any stage and you are still required to pay.

Therefore you owe the liability.

There's nothing you can do about the assault if they have chosen not to prosecute.

CIARAN_BOYLE · 23-11-2017 10:09PM

TheChizler wrote: »

Had you a legitimate reason for not paying?

Tbh once you get a summons it's solicitor time.

I sympathise with the passenger as the driver could have left them in the middle of nowhere with no ability to get to their destination and no internet to get another taxi. However that doesn't allow you walk away from the fare.

Gastropod77 · 23-11-2017 10:09PM

TheChizler wrote: »

Had you a legitimate reason for not paying?

Tbh once you get a summons it's solicitor time.

My reasons for not paying were as follows:
1. He didn't drive me the way I wanted to go, which I thought they were bound to
2. He didn't take me to my destination
3. He grabbed me forcefully

Gastropod77 · 23-11-2017 10:12PM

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Unfortunately taxi drivers are allowed to end the journey at any stage and you are still required to pay.

Therefore you owe the liability.

There's nothing you can do about the assault if they have chosen not to prosecute.

I have prosecuted the assault and made a formal statement to the Gardaí but I haven't received even an acknowledgement of my complaint (made 3 months ago).

TheChizler · 23-11-2017 10:24PM

Gastropod77 wrote: »

My reasons for not paying were as follows:
1. He didn't drive me the way I wanted to go, which I thought they were bound to
2. He didn't take me to my destination
3. He grabbed me forcefully

The normal solution to 1 and 2 is to pay and file a dispute with the regulator unfortunately. 3, even though it's not on has nothing to do with paying the fare, but hadn't you already refused to pay at that point hence the grabbing?

CIARAN_BOYLE · 23-11-2017 10:54PM

TheChizler wrote: »

The normal solution to 1 and 2 is to pay and file a dispute with the regulator unfortunately. 3, even though it's not on has nothing to do with paying the fare, but hadn't you already refused to pay at that point hence the grabbing?

Per the op he was asked to get out, then grabbed and asked to pay.

ANXIOUS · 23-11-2017 11:05PM

Tell the judge you understood that it was paid for by card and felt he was overcharging you.

TheChizler · 23-11-2017 11:08PM

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Per the op he was asked to get out, then grabbed and asked to pay.

I read that but it just seems a bizarre thing to happen without being prompted. Stranger things have happened I suppose.

TheChizler · 23-11-2017 11:34PM

Reading the acts they make reference to the hirer being liable for the fare payable for the service received once they've directed the driver to drive somewhere, but not that the driver has to drive to that place at all.

Just as a theoretical point for legal discussion, if for instance you fall asleep or aren't paying attention or something, what's to stop the driver from driving up and down the M50 all night and claiming the resulting fare is due for that service? Where does the law say they have to take a reasonable route or even go in the direction you request?

Is there some amendment I've missed that defers to the regulator to decide these things?

davo10 · 24-11-2017 08:34AM

The dash cam which most taxis now have will tell the story. I'm pretty sure Taxis are required to take the most direct route, if you hailed the taxi based on that, but then decided you wanted to take a different, longer route half way through the journey, then you pay the extra charge, my guess is you refused to pay for the route you wanted the taxi to take.

hullaballoo · 24-11-2017 08:47AM

davo10 wrote: »

The dash cam which most taxis now have will tell the story. I'm pretty sure Taxis are required to take the most direct route, if you hailed the taxi based on that, but then decided you wanted to take a different, longer route half way through the journey, then you pay the extra charge, my guess is you refused to pay for the route you wanted the taxi to take.

You've just invented your own story in your head and then seem to be using that concoction to try and bash the OP.

Unsurprisingly, a dim view is taken of posts like this.

Fred Swanson · 24-11-2017 02:04PM

This post has been deleted.

TheChizler · 24-11-2017 03:41PM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think I remember hearing about this happening a few times, any idea which statute relates to this?

GM228 · 24-11-2017 04:32PM

TheChizler wrote: »

I think I remember hearing about this happening a few times, any idea which statute relates to this?

S23 (3), Taxi Regulation Act 2013.

(3) The driver of a taxi when hired for a journey, shall not complete the journey, unless otherwise requested by the passenger, other than by taking—

(a) the shortest route, where practicable, or

(b) with the consent of the passenger, the most convenient route.

It's an offence and could see 1 point added to their SPSV licence or 2 on conviction.

TheChizler · 27-11-2017 01:16PM

GM228 wrote: »

S23 (3), Taxi Regulation Act 2013.

Excellent, thank you!

ShowMeTheCash · 27-11-2017 04:56PM

Gastropod77 wrote: »

My reasons for not paying were as follows:
1. He didn't drive me the way I wanted to go, which I thought they were bound to
2. He didn't take me to my destination
3. He grabbed me forcefully

Just to be clear, you said you asked him to change course slightly?

Why?

I think the assumption everyone here is thinking because you thought it would be faster? Or was there a reason you wanted him to go the other route?

In terms of the taxi driver not taking you the shortest route. This can be subjective. I think the case needs to be clear the driver was taking you for a "ride" but you said slight change so by the sounds of it this could simply come down to traffic.

Tbh not paying after the Gardi asked you to pay was probably a mistake.
You could of paid the fair and still pursued the assault.

Now even with the assault it could be argued that he grabbed you because you where legging it without paying...... Either way does not hold you in good stead...

Claw Hammer · 27-11-2017 06:32PM

The taxi driver is seeking a fare based on a quantum meruit. There is case law to the effect that some contracts are indivisible. The party must get the full item contracted for. A barber cannot cut half your hair, stop and demand payment for the work done and then send you off. It is certainly arguable that a taxi journey to a particular destination is a discrete item. The taxi driver must keep you in the car until you reach your destination unless you breach the contract in some way or the contract becomes frustrated by mechanical breakdown or some other unforeseeable event. the guards always take the side of the taxi driver, which encourages them to go on with this nonsense.

ShowMeTheCash · 27-11-2017 07:09PM

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The taxi driver is seeking a fare based on a quantum meruit. There is case law to the effect that some contracts are indivisible. The party must get the full item contracted for. A barber cannot cut half your hair, stop and demand payment for the work done and then send you off. It is certainly arguable that a taxi journey to a particular destination is a discrete item. The taxi driver must keep you in the car until you reach your destination unless you breach the contract in some way or the contract becomes frustrated by mechanical breakdown or some other unforeseeable event. the guards always take the side of the taxi driver, which encourages them to go on with this nonsense.

Well we also need to take the OP at his word here. It is a little strange to suggest to a driver to take a different route and for the driver to just stop and tell you to get out, then jump out himself and demand payment in some kind of rage.
One it does not make sense and would suggest that the driver was a bit of a whack job or the OP is fudging how this went down.

From the story, the fact that the guard asked him to pay seems to suggest that the gaurd has sided somewhat with the driver with regards payment, and i am sure the guard got the drivers side of the story also.

Also prosecuting the assult. The OP mentions he was grabbed by the lapels, so the taxi driver grabbed him by the jacket??

I am not 100% sure on this but I think the DPP gets to chose whether to prosecute and by the sounds of it they would not waste their time on this. Grabbing someones jacket I am not even sure would consititute an assult and untimtely as i doubt there was any injury it would come down to his word against the taxi drivers. Again unless there is a witness or some third party evidence to support his claim.

We can we prove, guy ordered a taxi, something happened between the driver and the passenger, the journey was cut short guy refuses to pay. Alleged the taxi driver grabbed him after he existed the vehicle without paying, also alleged that the taxi driver told him to get out without asking for payment.

Fred Swanson · 27-11-2017 07:12PM

This post has been deleted.

Effects · 27-11-2017 07:20PM

TheChizler wrote: »

I think I remember hearing about this happening a few times, any idea which statute relates to this?

It's mentioned in this article about scumbag taxi drivers ripping people off.
http://www.thejournal.ie/taxi-checkpoint-dublin-airport-fine-3489509-Jul2017/

Gastropod77 · 27-11-2017 07:21PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Just to be clear, you said you asked him to change course slightly?

Why?

I think the assumption everyone here is thinking because you thought it would be faster? Or was there a reason you wanted him to go the other route?

In terms of the taxi driver not taking you the shortest route. This can be subjective. I think the case needs to be clear the driver was taking you for a "ride" but you said slight change so by the sounds of it this could simply come down to traffic.

Tbh not paying after the Gardi asked you to pay was probably a mistake.
You could of paid the fair and still pursued the assault.

Now even with the assault it could be argued that he grabbed you because you where legging it without paying...... Either way does not hold you in good stead

We were driving the most direct route and he took a turn that was slightly less direct and had worse traffic. I asked him to turn around and keep going the way we had been going.

My suspicion as to why he threw me out is that he had been fiddling with his phone and got a nearby job that would take him back to his manor; this would have meant double the money of completing my journey and would have take him near his home, provided of course he got me to pay what had accrued.
There had been no arguing or raised voices on the journey so this is the only reason I can think of that he threw me out.

In terms of grabbing me to stop me legging it, he didn't have to grab me at all because I booked with MyTaxi, he had my name and address and could have gone to the Guards with that.

ShowMeTheCash · 27-11-2017 07:23PM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So what would he be waiting on from the Gardi if it is private?

Also can a private prosecuton result in a criminal conviction or would this technically be a civil matter?

GM228 · 27-11-2017 07:26PM

A private prosecution is bringing criminal proceedings where the private individual becomes the prosecutor, and yes they can result in a criminal conviction, it is not a civil proceeding.

They are extremely rare and require the permission of the DPP to proceed.

ShowMeTheCash · 27-11-2017 07:34PM

Gastropod77 wrote: »

We were driving the most direct route and he took a turn that was slightly less direct and had worse traffic. I asked him to turn around and keep going the way we had been going.

Slightly less direct i doubt would work as an argument around him trying to up the fair.

Gastropod77 wrote: »

My suspicion as to why he threw me out is that he had been fiddling with his phone and got a nearby job that would take him back to his manor; this would have meant double the money of completing my journey and would have take him near his home, provided of course he got me to pay what had accrued.

So you think he was going to throw you out regardless without getting to your destination?
You need to bare with me as the above is not making any sense.
As you are saying he was going to take longer route and now you think he done this to pick up another fair which was going to take longer than it should of?

Gastropod77 wrote: »

There had been no arguing or raised voices on the journey so this is the only reason I can think of that he threw me out.

OK - well from above your reason does not make any sense, unless the driver thought the direction you wanted to go was longer and it would cost him a fair.

[/QUOTE]
In terms of grabbing me to stop me legging it, he didn't have to grab me at all because I booked with MyTaxi, he had my name and address and could have gone to the Guards with that.[/QUOTE]

Sure but what I am saying is, can you prove he grabbed you? Did he admit that to the gardi at the time?

ShowMeTheCash · 27-11-2017 07:36PM

GM228 wrote: »

A private prosecution is bringing criminal proceedings where the private individual becomes the prosecutor, and yes they can result in a criminal conviction, it is not a civil proceeding.

They are extremely rare and require the permission of the DPP to proceed.

So the DPP can still refuse this? Do you think the DPP would give the OK to do this for someone grabbing you by the jacket?

Fred Swanson · 27-11-2017 07:38PM

This post has been deleted.

ShowMeTheCash · 27-11-2017 07:44PM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

OK on initiating does the DPP need to take this or is this something the OP need to fund with their own solicitor?

monument · 27-11-2017 08:01PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Also prosecuting the assult. The OP mentions he was grabbed by the lapels, so the taxi driver grabbed him by the jacket??

I am not 100% sure on this but I think the DPP gets to chose whether to prosecute and by the sounds of it they would not waste their time on this. Grabbing someones jacket I am not even sure would consititute an assult and untimtely as i doubt there was any injury it would come down to his word against the taxi drivers. Again unless there is a witness or some third party evidence to support his claim.

Assult doesn’t even require contact, you just have to “believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact”.

This is the section covering assult — there’s other clauses covering ‘Causing harm’ and ‘Causing serious harm’....

2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

without the consent of the other.

(2) In subsection (1) (a), “force” includes—

(a) application of heat, light, electric current, noise or any other form of energy, and

(b) application of matter in solid liquid or gaseous form.

(3) No such offence is committed if the force or impact, not being intended or likely to cause injury, is in the circumstances such as is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life and the defendant does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to

Gastropod77 · 27-11-2017 08:02PM

I have a question someone might be able to help me with.

Presumably the taxi driver made a statement under oath to get me summonsed.
Why was I not given an opportunity to make a statement, just dragged into court? Why did I get no chance to respond formally before that point?

Summons for refusing to pay taxi fare (Take 2)

Comments