Agenda item

Mr Wahidur Osmani – HCD175

The Licensing Officer, Phil Cooper, introduced the report regarding a review of Mr Wahidur Osmani’s Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licence HCD175.  Mr Osmani had held his taxi driver’s licence in Cheltenham since 2015, with it being due for renewal on 25 February 2019.  On 2 May 2017 a complaint was made to the Council relating to Mr Osmani, who had refused to take a passenger who was accompanied by a dog.  Mr Osmani reported the incident to the Licensing team, however the complainant’s version of events differed from Mr Osmani’s in that the complainant maintained that Mr Osmani knew the dog was an assistance dog.  The complaint and Mr Osmani’s explanation of events were contained in the background papers.  The Officer circulated a letter of support from Cheltenham Borough Homes which provided further information about a separate incident involving a dog and relating to Mr Osmani and his family and which might therefore be relevant.

The Officer continued that although an offence under the Equalities Act had been alleged, the Licensing Manager had decided not to prosecute but to refer the matter to committee for members to consider whether Mr Osmani was a fit and proper person to hold a Hackney Carriage Driver’s licence.  Members were advised that they could revoke the licence, take no further action or issue Mr Osmani with a written warning.

In response to questions from members, the Officer confirmed that the Equalities Act 2010 places a statutory duty on licensed drivers to carry assistance dogs with no extra charge.  However the transport of other pets is at the driver’s discretion and the driver can make a charge.  The Officer also clarified when asked that religious reasons are not legitimate grounds for refusing to carry an assistance dog. The only legitimate reason for a taxi driver refusing to take a passenger with an assistance dog is on medical grounds, in which case the driver can apply for a certificate of exemption but Cheltenham does not have any drivers holding such a certificate.

There being no further questions to the Officer, the Chair invited Mr Osmani and his representative Mr Mani Masih to address the committee.  Mr Masih informed members that Mr Osmani admitted that the incident had taken place but not as the version of events stated.  He explained that Mr Osmani was on the telephone to his wife who was dealing with a racist incident at home, when he was approached and asked to take a passenger with a dog. He refused and suggested they ask the car behind as it was a wheelchair access taxi and thus a bigger car.  Mr Osmani admitted that he was not really paying attention as he was more concerned for his wife and that he had not realised that the passenger was visually impaired as he himself had not approached his taxi.  When asked by the passenger why he would not take the dog, Mr Osmani found himself saying because I am a Muslim, something for which he apologises.  Mr Masih continued, informing members that Mr Osmani had been a taxi driver since 2015 and knew this was not good customer service and that he should have asked if the dog was an assistance dog.   Mr Osmani did not realise this until the taxi driver behind him questioned why he had not taken the fare.   He stated that he had taken dogs before and had done so since.  Mr Masih informed members that Mr Osmani was himself a victim of discrimination and that the letter of support from Cheltenham Borough Homes outlined the problems his family were encountering at home, which did involve a dog.   Mr Osmani did not recall the complainant threatening to call the Police, as he would then have taken more notice as the Asian culture are afraid of the Police.  Realising that there might be a complaint made against him, Mr Osmani took steps to report the incident to the council and to rectify the situation and to express his apology to this person.

In reply to questions from members, Mr Osmani:

·         Stated he had not seen the dog or its harness.  It was dark, about 11.30/11.45 at night and the person who approached him from the group of about 5 people did not have the dog with them. 

·         Admitted he was distracted on the phone to his wife and realised that he should have asked if it was a guide dog, as he knew it was law to take assistance dogs, even in Islam law it was okay to take guide dogs.

·         Confirmed that he would not say ‘I’m a Muslim’ again as an excuse to refuse a fare, or refuse to take dogs and stated that he does have regular customers with dogs.

·         Stated that he knew his action had not been professional and said that he had been running a restaurant for 6 years and therefore knew how essential customer service was.

Members felt that it was not professional to be at the front of the taxi rank and on a mobile phone and suggested that in future he should leave the rank and drive to a different location to take calls of a personal nature. 

Members empathised with Mr Osmani regarding the racist threats he was having involving knives, petrol bombs and a bull mastiff type dog and noted the letter of support regarding Mr Osmani and his family from the Officer at Cheltenham Borough Homes.  A member asked if the issue had been resolved as the case had been adjourned until late July for sentencing and the Legal Officer replied that he must have pleaded guilty for the case to have gone through so quickly.

It was generally felt by members that there was no ill-will meant by Mr Osmani and that he was clearly trying to deal with a difficult situation at home, however good customer service, regulated phone use and checking whether a dog was an assistance dog, were all qualities required of a fit and proper taxi driver.  The Chair reminded members that this was a serious offence in law and that if Mr Osmani had been the last taxi available that night, the customer would have been more at risk.  The Chair expressed his opinion that a written warning advising on customer service regarding assistance dogs and appropriate phone use, might be the appropriate course of action.

In summing up, the applicant stated that it had not been a deliberate act and that if he had known it was a guide dog he would not have refused the fare.  He said he understood the complainant’s reasons and wanted to apologise from the bottom of his heart to this person.

There being no further comments, the Chair moved to vote on 1.4.2 of the report being to continue the licence but with a written warning.

Upon a vote it was unanimous, 7 for, 0 against.

RESOLVED THAT, Mr Wahidur Osmani’s Hackney Carriage Driver’s Licence be continued but that he be issued with a written warning stating that if in future he refused to take an assistance dog he would be charged with a criminal offence.