49 replies to this topic

[Radman]

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.


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.

What do you mean we cant ask people for their medical history?

Everytime I report someone for urinating under the railway byelaws I ask them if they have a pre-existing medical condition which would require them to urinate.

Of course you can ask them...

[Shogy1]

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.


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.

Remember it would be down to the circumstances in which it happened. never say never.

[MerseyLLB]

I cannot see any way in which we could prove the cause of someone being sick. I have been involuntarily sick when sober, with no warning and for no identifiable reason.

People are often sick from drinking too much water.

If you asked me 'why were you sick', how could I honestly answer?

Let us look at another involuntary action: sneezing.

"Mersey, you say that you lost control of the vehicle as you pulled out of the parking space due to sneezing?"
"That is correct."
"Tell us what you were doing just before you set off"
"I was eating a peppered ham sandwich."
"So you recklessly ate pepper, which is known to irritate the mucus membranes of the nose, before driving? You are an idiot of a man"


When you look at it that way....

[5460]

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

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 it were self induced sickness then it's not necessarily involuntary, as they could have prevented it. If this was the case, people would be able to get high on drugs and get away with anything they want, stating the drugs made their actions involuntary?

I don't agree to the second part even if it was the cabby's last tarrif of the night. Certain parts of vomit (depending on what's been eaten) can cause permanent damage, such as acids or dyes which cannot be removed from a carpet if left alone.

[SkinSte]

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

That's why we interview people. "So you had 15 vodkas and didn't think you'd be sick?"

Also, of course you can ask people if they have any medical conditions. I always ask a drunk if they are drunk or if they are otherwise ill or injured. I often ask victims to sign medical consent forms to release their records to us. I always ask someone not wearing a seatbelt if they have an exemption certificate. And so on.

[MerseyLLB]

That's why we interview people. "So you had 15 vodkas and didn't think you'd be sick?"

Also, of course you can ask people if they have any medical conditions. I always ask a drunk if they are drunk or if they are otherwise ill or injured. I often ask victims to sign medical consent forms to release their records to us. I always ask someone not wearing a seatbelt if they have an exemption certificate. And so on.

Are you able to self-diagnose yourself though? The times I have vomited (and yes I have vomited through alcohol) tend to be some time after I have arrived home whereby I awake nauseous some hours after retiring.

Some people might have had three glasses of wine, no dinner and are sick and then continue their night out. Some might have drunk a single pint too quickly and it disagrees with them, whilst I might down 12 pints and sit there happy as larry being thrown around in a cab. Was the cab driver's driving responsible for the nausea?

Wikipedia lists some 40-50 odd reasons for vomiting : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomiting

[SkinSte]

That is why we interview: "so you usually drink 15 vodkas, but this time you hadn't eaten for 48 hours and you were on antibiotics which your GP told you not to consume alcohol with? Does that sound reckless to you?"

I'm not sure anyone is saying "Ah ha, you've been sick, you must have been reckless! Handcuffs out!" merely that in some cases, it's possible. Or quite likely. But either way it could be investigated.

[Rob90]

I think that at this point in the discussion it is time for some case law to be introduced. English law has taken the approach of subjective recklessness, that is, a person will be held to be reckless if they have foreseen a risk, and then gone on to take it unjustifiably, given the circumstances known to him. This principle comes from the leading case in the area, that of R v G [2003] UKHL 50, a case concerning two young boys, aged 11 and 12 who had caused a fire in the rear yard of a supermarket by setting fire to paper, subsequently causing approx. £1M worth of damage to it and surrounding premises. Both were charged with damage, contrary to s.1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971, it was alleged on the indictment that they had caused this damage recklessly. They were convicted at first instance and appealed all the way to the House of Lords, who found that it was not possible to convict for reckless criminal damage where the defendants had not considered the risks of causing said damage, and that even if they had done so, by reason of age or of lack of capacity, the risk would not have been obvious to them.

Regarding the application to this case, believe that it is unlikely that a) CPS would run a prosecution, because it would not be in the public interest to prosecute someone for chundering in a taxi, no matter how sloshed they were. and b) the 'offender' would not meet the subjective standard of recklessness laid down in G, as it would seem unlikely that the risk of puking in a taxi would be so unjustifiable to take, given the circumstances likely to be known to the chunderer, even if the person is very drunk. Not everyone throws up when they are drunk, and of those who do I would suggest that most do not do so on every occasion they consume alcohol. One might argue, as has been by other contributors, that if one was to prosecute those who puke in taxis because of drink, then why would one not do for those who are 'genuinely ill', is it unjustifiable to get into a taxi if you are feeling a bit peaky? What if you are pregnant?

[Phil524]

£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.

What options are open to the police if mediation to exchange details doesn't work? So in the original post, if "Linda" and friends refuse to give details then the taxi driver can't pursue it as a civil matter. (Persuasion seems to be the only option I can see.)

[Damsel]

Firstly, with regards to medical reasons why someone would be sick and asking about medical history.

I didn't quite mean it the way it's been taken. Perhaps I phrased it badly.


You can't just wander around asking people who have not committed a criminal offence about their medical history. And as I'm not convinced that 'being sick in a taxi' is a crime.....

What options are open to the police if mediation to exchange details doesn't work? So in the original post, if "Linda" and friends refuse to give details then the taxi driver can't pursue it as a civil matter. (Persuasion seems to be the only option I can see.)

Good question. And one which I do not know (100%) the answer to. If I get a chance I'll run it past my sergeant tonight and see what he thinks.

If I had to guess, I'd say *if* the fouling charge forms part of the fare, you'd arrest for bilking?, establish identity then de-arrest, but as I said, that's only a guess. Would that even be a legal arrest? I've never dealt with one, so I honestly don't know. I shall find out though.

[oddbod]

What options are open to the police if mediation to exchange details doesn't work? So in the original post, if "Linda" and friends refuse to give details then the taxi driver can't pursue it as a civil matter. (Persuasion seems to be the only option I can see.)

See post #19.
This isn't criminal damage, it's a bilking.
S3 Theft Act 1978.

[hathaway]

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.

Damage is when property is "permanently or temporarily reduced in either value or usefulness" as such when a police officer was spat at and the spit landed on his coat, there was no criminal damage as the spit was easily wiped off. A soiled taxi, however, would be because the cleaning would not be so simple and swift

[Damsel]

I've just put a call in to the Bristol hackney office.

They are of the mind that any fouling charge is separate to any legal fare (the legal "fare" is what is displayed on the meter) and constitutes a civil contract between the driver and passenger. The only reason that they specify a charge on the (council issued) tariff is so that passengers cannot be charged excessive amounts by the driver.

I'm waiting for a call back from the hackney licencing officer (he's at lunch (aren't they always)) and he'll explain the procedure to me as far as the police are concerned.



But at the moment, the fouling charge sounds to me like it might be a purely civil matter. I'll post an update as soon as I have one.

[Damsel]

Right. Just heard back from the council hackney licencing officer (who's ex job as it happens).

The fouling charge does not constitute part of the legal fare, as they said earlier, the legal fare is what is displayed on the taxi meter. So fouling the cab (and then being unwilling (or unable) to pay the charge) is not bilking.

It is a purely civil matter between the driver (or his company) and the passenger.


The police cannot arrest anyone as no offence has been committed (barring any other circumstances) and all that we can do, if called, is mediate and try to persuade the passenger to give their details to the driver (we can, if the passenger agrees to give details, do a voters for example to make sure that they aren't duff details). Then it's up to the driver, or his company, to send the passenger a bill and follow that up as necessary, small claims court etc.

[pottheed]

in scotland the soiling fee is set by the council and therefore counts as part of the fare.

[BristolSam]

If the police had the details then s35(2) DPA provides an exception to DPA allowing details to be released for the purpose of legal proceedings

[oddbod]

It seems the answer depends on who you ask.
My local council state you can add the £50 fouling charge to the metered fare, although that would be difficult as modern meters generally only let you add up to £11.80 in extras.
The fouling charge, a 20p booking fee and any road tolls nay be added manually to the fare, all other extras such as late night, sunday, christmas are added automatically as calender meters are a requirement in this area. The only charge which may not be added but can still be charged by the driver is a £3 charge for an estate car.

..the legal fare is what is displayed on the taxi meter.

The bylaws state this is the case for hackney carriages but not private hire.

[Killicksparker]

Surely whenever you get in a taxi the 'extras' are added to the fare (extra passengers/luggage etc) and are therefore part of your full fare. Also displayed on the list of charges is a 'soiling' charge. So for example
Fare - £20
Extra bag - £5
Soiling charge - £75
So the total fare is £100.
If the passengers run off having only paid some of the fare it is the same as bilking the taxi, as you have not paid the FULL fare

** The soiling charge for a taxi here is £80 !!

[BazzaBill]

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!

Job done, until she requests that the conditional caution is expunged, which it would be.

As others have rightly said - it's a civil matter and nothing to do with the police.

[securitas88]

I don't agree that it's bilking- the soling charge is not for a service done nor a good supplied; rather it is a charge for causing damage to the taxi, which I beleive that people would not be legally required to pay.

It's similar to the parking charges you get in private car parks when you break their rules. If you park half in one bay and half in another and then you can receive a "civil parking charge notice." This is a charge for breaking the rules of the car park, similar to a soling charge, where you have broken the rules of the taxi. You are under no obligation to pay it and the aggreived party must take the matter to civil court to get the money back.

However, despite the position of the law, I do beleive that people should pay a soling charge if they chunder in a taxi so I would help the taxi driver as much as I could. After all, sick in a taxi can cause quite a few lost fares and will take time and money to clean up. It would probably be better if either there were byelaws to deal with this, or a national law.

Just thought- at a stretch puking might be considered spitting. After all, saliva usually comes out of the mouth when someone vomits. In Southampton, there is a byelaw against spitting in public carriages:

http://www.southampt...cm46-312643.pdf

Although the penalty is still very small, it empowers you to arrest the person just in case they do not give you their details.

[5460]

Just thought- at a stretch puking might be considered spitting. After all, saliva usually comes out of the mouth when someone vomits. In Southampton, there is a byelaw against spitting in public carriages:

I think you'd have a tough one with that. Spitting to a normal person is usually deliberately projecting saliva at someone or something, not when saliva escapes. If that were the case you'd have to deal with someone that legitimately drools.

[SC_GMP_BDIV]

Surely whenever you get in a taxi the 'extras' are added to the fare (extra passengers/luggage etc) and are therefore part of your full fare. Also displayed on the list of charges is a 'soiling' charge. So for example
Fare - £20
Extra bag - £5
Soiling charge - £75
So the total fare is £100.
If the passengers run off having only paid some of the fare it is the same as bilking the taxi, as you have not paid the FULL fare

** The soiling charge for a taxi here is £80 !!

It wouldn't be bilking as the passenger has paid a portion of the fare owed. It would become a civil matter at that point.

I deal with taxi drivers every night shift who complain about people soiling their cab and refusing to pay the soiling charges. I simply explain to the taxi driver it is a civil matter. They need to take it up with the small claims court if needs be. I also explan to the taxi driver that if they are going to pick up people who are absolutely blind drunk then having their cab soiled is an occupational hazard if they wish to avoid it then don't pick up drunk fares, simples.

[DS168]

Very interested in the question as it's a situation I have had to deal with several times.

The police cannot arrest anyone as no offence has been committed (barring any other circumstances) and all that we can do, if called, is mediate and try to persuade the passenger to give their details to the driver (we can, if the passenger agrees to give details, do a voters for example to make sure that they aren't duff details). Then it's up to the driver, or his company, to send the passenger a bill and follow that up as necessary, small claims court etc.

I agree with the above, my question is what to do if the person is not only obstinate that they will not pay for soiling the taxi, but also refuses to provide any details. I dealt with one where a "gentleman" had decided to spray the interior with pepsi and then throw food around the back in protest against the driver taking him "the long way round".

On our arrival he promptly refused to pay the soiling fee (£50) but also to provide any details to us or the driver.

Perhaps I'm being ignorant but it seems to me an arrest for criminal damage would be appropriate here? He clearly intended to damage the back of the taxi. He is refusing to provide details so as far as I could see, a civil claim could not be pursued.

[5460]

you should have arrested the driver on sus of fraud

You would have to go carefully on this one. The driver may indeed have gone the long way, but who's to say he hasn't avoided roadworks or a closed road, and has in fact saved the gent some money? In my town there's currently a major road being closed due to a bridge being repaired, what would seem to be one heck of a detour is not only the quickest route, but also the only decent way around.

Also I'd have thought a street bail may be appropriate here to ensure you get a statement from the passenger, and also to verify the details of the route. If you had the driver details and didn't fear them disappearing, there may even be no need for arrest, as you wouldn't necessarily have the necessity of P+E as you wouldn't lose anything by delaying a day.

[MerseyLLB]

I think someone who intentionally or recklessly throws/spills food you would be quite right to deal with for crim dam. That is alot different to someone who vomits, which is generally an involuntary action. Again, in my opinion, a driver who drove too far/wrong way is a civil dispute over services rendered and not a police matter.