49 replies to this topic

[Prolixia]

This is a real scenario that I dealt with a couple of weeks ago.

Three girls get into a pre-booked minicab and take a £20 journey. During the course of that journey, one of them (Linda) throws up inside the taxi. At the end of the journey the driver points to the notice in his cab stipulating a £30 fee for cleaning the cab and asks the girls to pay it. However, the girls just give him a £20 note and run off into a bar.

The driver approaches you with this story and based on his description you promptly find the girls hiding in the toilets of the bar. Linda admits to having been sick in the taxi, but the girls claim to have given the driver an extra £50 to clean it. You strongly doubt that the girls paid the soiling fee. They refuse to pay the driver "another" £30, or to give the driver their details.

What are the options here?

If they had run off paying less than £20 then it would have been a straightforward making off without payment. However, I think it is very tenuous whether the soiling fee is for "goods received or service done". I'm more inclined to think that the non-payment is a breach of contract (it is quite analogous to parking next to a sign warning that your car will be clamped), however since the girls have refused to give their details to the driver there's no way for him to start civil proceedings against them.

Even if you could arrest for making off, it isn't clear to me whether it was only Linda who would have committed the offence, or if the other girls were equally liable for the soiling charge simply by riding in the taxi at the time when it was soiled.

One of my colleagues suggested that you could require Linda's details under S.50 of the Police Reform Act on the basis that she was behaving antisocially by throwing up over someone's taxi, and that there is an exception to the Data Protection Act that would allow you to provide these to the taxi driver on the basis that they are necessary for legal proceedings. However, I'm not sure if that's a real solution or a speculative attempt at cooking up a way round the legislation.

As it happens, I was able to mediate and the girls ended up paying the extra £30. However, what would have been the options if they hadn't?

Edit: corrected typo

Edited by Prolixia, 16 February 2012 - 09:59 AM.

[wanabe]

Is the £30 for throwing-up classed as a fine?

[Prolixia]

Is the £30 for throwing-up classed as a fine?

I don't think so - it's intended to compensate the driver for the cost/time required to restore his vehicle to a usable state. It's a charge made by the driver within an upper limit that is specificity by the authorities.

My assumption is that it's a term of the contract between you and the driver.

[Merlin820]

I went to a similar scenario. The reg I was with told the taxi driver the police cannot enforce a fine such as this as it's a civil matter.


Edit: I should add that we only attended as the driver alleged the passenger had assaulted him. When the passenger came out of the pub and filled the doorway he was standing in, it was very clear this was not the case given the driver was not more than 5'3" and still standing!

Edited by Merlin820, 16 February 2012 - 09:41 AM.

[NexivWho]

I've got a friend who is a taxi driver and also a special and he says that, if the taxi is soiled, the person who did it does not actually have to pay the fee as its not legally binding, its more of a goodwill gesture.

[candid]

This is a real scenario that I dealt with a couple of weeks ago.

Three girls get into a pre-booked minicab and takes a £20 journey. During the course of that journey, one of them (Linda) throws up inside the taxi. At the end of the journey the driver points to the notice in his cab stipulating a £30 fee for cleaning the cab and asks the girls to pay it. However, the girls just give him a £20 note and ran off into a bar.

The driver approaches you with this story and based on his description you promptly find the girls hiding in the toilets of the bar. Linda admits to having been sick in the taxi, but the girls claim to have given the driver an extra £50 to clean it. You strongly doubt that the girls paid the soiling fee. They refuse to pay the driver "another" £30, or to give the driver their details.

What are the options here?

If they had run off paying less than £20 then it would have been a straightforward making off without payment. However, I think it is very tenuous whether the soiling fee is for "goods received or service done". I'm more inclined to think that the non-payment is a breach of contract (it is quite analogous to parking next to a sign warning that your car will be clamped), however since the girls have refused to give their details to the driver there's no way for him to start civil proceedings against them.

Even if you could arrest for making off, it isn't clear to me whether it was only Linda who would have committed the offence, or if the other girls were equally liable for the soiling charge simply by riding in the taxi at the time when it was soiled.

One of my colleagues suggested that you could require Linda's details under S.50 of the Police Reform Act on the basis that she was behaving antisocially by throwing up over someone's taxi, and that there is an exception to the Data Protection Act that would allow you to provide these to the taxi driver on the basis that they are necessary for legal proceedings. However, I'm not sure if that's a real solution or a speculative attempt at cooking up a way round the legislation.

As it happens, I was able to mediate and the girls ended up paying the extra £30. However, what would have been the options if they hadn't?

Edit: corrected typo

Non payment of the 'soiling fee' (what a lovely term) I would think is purely a civil matter. However, putting the £30 fee aside, isn't it criminal damage? The driver would incurr a cost to restore his vehicle. She could be conditionally cautioned (if she has no previous for crim damage) and one condition could be to foot the bill for the cleaning. The driver is compensated, the woman has been dealt with for her reckless and inconsiderate behaviour which I would hope make her think next time. Job Done!

Edited by candid, 16 February 2012 - 10:02 AM.

[Prolixia]

Non payment of the 'soiling fee' (what a lovely term) I would think is purely a civil matter. However, putting the £30 fee aside, isn't it criminal damage? The driver would incurr a cost to restore his vehicle. She could be conditionally cautioned (if she has no previous for crim damage) and one condition could be to foot the bill for the cleaning.

Personally, I think it would be difficult to show an intention or recklessness to damage the taxi on Linda's part. Criminal damage did flit through my mind at the time, but I'm pretty sure that it doesn't apply.

I feel slightly uneasy at the suggestions that there is nothing for the police to do, even though I suspect they're actually correct. Leaving a taxi driver who feels entitled to the money with a group of drunks who are dead-set on handing over neither money nor details sounds like a recipe for trouble (involving people being forcibly marched to cash points). Telling the driver that it's a civil matter is all well and good, but he doesn't actually have any way to start legal proceedings.

After the event I was greatly relieved that the girls had coughed up (in the financial sense, rather than medical). It strikes me as the kind of job that is difficult to leave without it appearing that you've done the wrong thing.

[Wolves13]

Non payment of the 'soiling fee' (what a lovely term) I would think is purely a civil matter. However, putting the £30 fee aside, isn't it criminal damage? The driver would incurr a cost to restore his vehicle. She could be conditionally cautioned (if she has no previous for crim damage) and one condition could be to foot the bill for the cleaning. The driver is compensated, the woman has been dealt with for her reckless and inconsiderate behaviour which I would hope make her think next time. Job Done!

I wouldn't say Criminal Damage.


'A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another'. The taxi hasn't been destroyed, neither has it been damaged to some extent. Doubt being sick in the back of a taxi would pass CPS for being classed as damage to property.

[bensonby]

nick her for being drunk*


It is a civil matter but I'd attempt to mediate and would try and get both parties to exchange details if they refused to pay.





*I almost certainly wouldn't - but you could do.

[Shogy1]

Non payment of the 'soiling fee' (what a lovely term) I would think is purely a civil matter. However, putting the £30 fee aside, isn't it criminal damage? The driver would incurr a cost to restore his vehicle. She could be conditionally cautioned (if she has no previous for crim damage) and one condition could be to foot the bill for the cleaning. The driver is compensated, the woman has been dealt with for her reckless and inconsiderate behaviour which I would hope make her think next time. Job Done!

It could be if the cab was out of use until it was cleaned and dried. According to Blackstones, it was held that criminal damage was caused to a cell due to someone stuffing a blanket down a toilet and flooding it, putting the cell out of use. .

It would probably depend on how the court viewed the recklessness of it in this case.


Can we put conditions on cautions?

[candid]

I wouldn't say Criminal Damage.


'A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another'. The taxi hasn't been destroyed, neither has it been damaged to some extent. Doubt being sick in the back of a taxi would pass CPS for being classed as damage to property.

Of course it's damage. It's something that has resulted in a cost to restore and something has to be damaged to restore it. It's exactly the same lines as someone urinating in a cell.

Whilst it's not intentional it was reckless

Can we put conditions on cautions?

Yes mate. An MG14 is the conditional caution form however it has to go to CPS for approval unlike the police simple caution. You can have a whole manner of conditions. If your force uses NSPIS custody take a look at the template for it which lists a load of conditions. Just submit an MG03 detailing the facts of the case and state you want to issue a conditional caution and then list the conditions. If you are adding compensation type conditions you will need quotes or receipts to prove the repair or replacement costs. They have 14 weeks maximum to meet the conditions you have put within the caution otherwise if they fail you have to go back to CPS for a charging decision.

Also if you are thinking of a condition where they pay the repair/replacement costs for something you have to put this within the interview of them. They have to be willing to do it and have the means to pay it. Otherwise forget the caution.

[Marricked]

£30 is quite cheap, considering that taxi driver wont be able to work and bring in revenue until he has it cleaned!

I'd push towards it being a civil matter I think. However the way that they allegedly ran off could indicate intention to avoid making payment, but is the £30 a valid charge to impose in the first place?

[Damsel]

£30 bargain. The "fouling charge" is between £60-£80 in Bristol (depending on which LA controls it) and it's a civil matter. If the police get involved at all, it would only be to mediate and perhaps get the parties to exchange details.

[MerseyLLB]

People would seriously try and stick someone on crim dam for vomiting, an INVOLUNTARY action?

I am not saying that the girls actions are right, just pointing out the absurdity of trying to suggest any kind of recklessness or intent on somebody based on an involuntary action.

With regards to the 'Blackstones' guidance on the cell, I think we can see the massive difference there; flooding the toilet was a deliberate act.

Out of interest, surely if I vomit in your cab I could just say "Apologies, where are you based I will come and clean it in the morning.'

[Shogy1]

Yes mate. An MG14 is the conditional caution form however it has to go to CPS for approval unlike the police simple caution. You can have a whole manner of conditions. If your force uses NSPIS custody take a look at the template for it which lists a load of conditions. Just submit an MG03 detailing the facts of the case and state you want to issue a conditional caution and then list the conditions. If you are adding compensation type conditions you will need quotes or receipts to prove the repair or replacement costs. They have 14 weeks maximum to meet the conditions you have put within the caution otherwise if they fail you have to go back to CPS for a charging decision.

Also if you are thinking of a condition where they pay the repair/replacement costs for something you have to put this within the interview of them. They have to be willing to do it and have the means to pay it. Otherwise forget the caution.

Ah right... I've been handing out FPNs for so long I've forgotten what case papers look like

[bensonby]

People would seriously try and stick someone on crim dam for vomiting, an INVOLUNTARY action?

I'm interested in this one..... yes, it is involuntary, but it was as a result (presumably) from being intoxicated - which is voluntary. Voluntary intoxication is never a defence (except on some occassions where specific intent is required). Therefore, can the act of getting very drunk and then getting in a taxi and subsequently vomiting be considered reckless? I think perhaps it may.....

[Shogy1]

People would seriously try and stick someone on crim dam for vomiting, an INVOLUNTARY action?

I am not saying that the girls actions are right, just pointing out the absurdity of trying to suggest any kind of recklessness or intent on somebody based on an involuntary action.

With regards to the 'Blackstones' guidance on the cell, I think we can see the massive difference there; flooding the toilet was a deliberate act.

Out of interest, surely if I vomit in your cab I could just say "Apologies, where are you based I will come and clean it in the morning.'

If you included my other comment I did say it would be down to the recklessness in this case.

[Damsel]

People would seriously try and stick someone on crim dam for vomiting, an INVOLUNTARY action?

I am not saying that the girls actions are right, just pointing out the absurdity of trying to suggest any kind of recklessness or intent on somebody based on an involuntary action.

With regards to the 'Blackstones' guidance on the cell, I think we can see the massive difference there; flooding the toilet was a deliberate act.

Out of interest, surely if I vomit in your cab I could just say "Apologies, where are you based I will come and clean it in the morning.'

I agree with you about the Criminal Damage, that'd be a complete non starter.

Not so sure about "coming to clean it in the morning" though. That would be effectively putting the driver out of work for the rest of the evening/night.

[oddbod]

The fouling charge is part of the agreed charges set by the local authority, if it's clearly displayed on the tariff card in the vehicle then it's chargeable as any other part of the fare would be. It's a bilking that could become a civil matter if details are exchanged. The LA sets the maximum cost for any journey, the driver can insist on the full amount or accept less.

[Damsel]

I'm interested in this one..... yes, it is involuntary, but it was as a result (presumably) from being intoxicated - which is voluntary. Voluntary intoxication is never a defence (except on some occassions where specific intent is required). Therefore, can the act of getting very drunk and then getting in a taxi and subsequently vomiting be considered reckless? I think perhaps it may.....

Alright then, what if the "vomitee" wasn't drunk? What if they were ill? Where would you make the distinction? What if they'd only had one pint, you could smell alcohol and they'd just thrown up, so you'd assume that they were drunk, but they wouldn't be. Are we going to start breathalysing everyone that's sick in a taxi? Perhaps they've got food poisoning etc etc etc

That's why it's not Crim Dam. You'd never be able to prove intent or recklessness.

[Shogy1]

I agree with you about the Criminal Damage, that'd be a complete non starter.

Not so sure about "coming to clean it in the morning" though. That would be effectively putting the driver out of work for the rest of the evening/night.

Is that a non stater in that it wouldn't get past CPS or that it isn't criminal damage?

[Radman]

I wouldn't say Criminal Damage.


'A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another'. The taxi hasn't been destroyed, neither has it been damaged to some extent. Doubt being sick in the back of a taxi would pass CPS for being classed as damage to property.

Much like a police cell that needs cleaning though when soiled or flooded it has to be taken out of service doesnt it?

I would suggest criminal damage MAY fit if the young lady was drunk - just wondering if any council taxi byelaws would cover it

Theres usually a byelaw for everything...

Edited by Radman, 16 February 2012 - 11:59 AM.

[Shogy1]

Alright then, what if the "vomitee" wasn't drunk? What if they were ill? Where would you make the distinction? What if they'd only had one pint, you could smell alcohol and they'd just thrown up, so you'd assume that they were drunk, but they wouldn't be. Are we going to start breathalysing everyone that's sick in a taxi? Perhaps they've got food poisoning etc etc etc

That's why it's not Crim Dam. You'd never be able to prove intent or recklessness.

That would have to be considered on a case by case basis.

[Damsel]

Is that a non stater in that it wouldn't get past CPS or that it isn't criminal damage?

I'd say that it's not criminal damage. You *might* be able to squeeze a PND out of it somewhere, but you'll be pushing it unless one of the parties kicks off about either the charge or the mess.

That would have to be considered on a case by case basis.

And how on earth would you propose that we did that?

Party A has been sick in the back of the taxi, Party B phones the police as Party A is refusing to pay the fouling charge. We rock up, and say what?

There are no limits to how much a person can drink before they're not allowed to be a passenger in a vehicle, and we'd have no power to administer a breath test to see if we could form the opinion that they'd been somehow reckless.

We can't ask people about their medical history, and we can only really ask people if they're ill with a view to requesting an ambo.


Spewing your guts is hardly ever a wilful act, but I think we'd be hard pressed to prove that someone was reckless by doing so.

[bensonby]

I'm not saying it wouldn't be difficult but if we could prove, for example, in interview, in what they have on them (a half drunk bottle of vodka perhaps) or by whatever else that they were very drunk (don't forget we are expert witnesses on that). Then, they got in a cab and vomited (and did not request the cab stop so they could do so etc) then I think we are very close to looking at recklessness...after all, throwing up is an entirely forseeable consequence.

I don't know how far it would get with the CPS to be honest - but academically I think we could be looking at a crim dam.