A visually impaired woman had her confidence “shattered” after a Boro Cars driver refused to take her guide dog.
Yup, you guessed it:
Hidayat Qahar had agreed to collect Rosie Pybus from Middlesbrough railway station, knowing she had an assistance dog.
However on arrival, he refused to let her dog Kane into the vehicle and drove away, leaving Rosie stranded for 20 minutes until a replacement turned up.
And incredibly, once court proceedings were ongoing, Ms Pybus claims Qahar was sent to pick her up again, this time without her guide dog.
Not only that, but he decided to attempt to pull on the cloak of victimhood, as usual:
She says she was made to feel “uncomfortable and shocked” when he went on to discuss how the incident could lead him to losing his job.
I'd have felt delighted & vindicated, but that's just me. The cab firm seems to be only too well aware of the potential PR issue:
Boro Cars spokeswoman Christine Bell said: “Such behaviour will not be tolerated by Boro Cars. We provided key evidence to Middlesbrough Council to assist them in their prosecution of their licensed driver who no longer works at Boro Cars.
“We have also reminded all of our drivers of their responsibilities as private hire drivers and always try to help our customers with assistance dogs by providing larger vehicles that are more spacious and comfortable for the customer and their dog.”
So, what did our toothless 'justice' system hand out?
Qahar, 29, of Monkland Close, central Middlesbrough, was prosecuted at Teesside Magistrates’ Court last week after Rosie had complained to Middlesbrough Council over the May 4 incident, following advice from the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association.
He pleaded guilty to an offence under the Equality Act 2010 and was fined £40 with a £30 victim surcharge and ordered to pay £200 costs.
Pathetic. How about a lifetime ban on applying for a cab driver license? Not just in the borough - all across Britain?
5 comments:
Why do providers not have the same rights as consumers. The right to say no. Of course try saying no to government. You cannot. Seems to me social justice is only for those groups who are powerful enough to define what that means and who it applies to.
Because that would be a bit harsh. A forty quid fine seems plenty under the circumstances. All he did was refuse to allow someone onto his private property
@JuliaM
New tag required:
RoPpass
If you want to be a taxi driver, the rules are you have to pick up fares with guide dogs. If you don't want to pick up fares with guide dogs, don't be a taxi driver. Can you imagine what the fine would be if a driver refused to pick up someone of a particular religion, £40? I don't think so. Being blind and needing a guide dog isn't exactly a choice, unlike picking a particular sky fairy to follow.
How about another tag. FIFO. Fit in or f**k off.
"Why do providers not have the same rights as consumers. The right to say no."
We could argue about that until the cows come home. The point is, they don't.
"Because that would be a bit harsh. A forty quid fine seems plenty under the circumstances. All he did was refuse to allow someone onto his private property"
It's not his 'private property' if he's using it to make a living from members of the public. Our gaff, our rules, remember?
"New tag required:
RoPpass"
Very good!
"If you want to be a taxi driver, the rules are you have to pick up fares with guide dogs. If you don't want to pick up fares with guide dogs, don't be a taxi driver. "
Spot on!
Post a Comment