TfL, Guide Dogs and Minicab Drivers
 

TfL have announced that they have successfully prosecuted 21 private
hire drivers for not accepting assistance dogs between February 2015
and May 2017. One driver was ordered to pay £1,488 after trying to charge
extra for carrying an assistance dog.

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/pr...assistance-dog

TfL, Guide Dogs and Minicab Drivers
 

On 25/08/2017 10:45, Robin9 wrote:
TfL have announced that they have successfully prosecuted 21 private
hire drivers for not accepting assistance dogs between February 2015
and May 2017. One driver was ordered to pay £1,488 after trying to
charge
extra for carrying an assistance dog.

http://tinyurl.com/y7pr5sg3


Whilst my natural reaction to this is "good", it does raise the question
of whether assistance dogs are special and whether private hire drivers
are allowed to refuse passengers (irrespective of number of legs) for
any reason and if so what?

TfL, Guide Dogs and Minicab Drivers
 

In message , at 14:08:34 on Fri, 25 Aug
2017, Someone Somewhere remarked:
TfL have announced that they have successfully prosecuted 21 private
hire drivers for not accepting assistance dogs between February 2015
and May 2017. One driver was ordered to pay £1,488 after trying to
charge
extra for carrying an assistance dog.
http://tinyurl.com/y7pr5sg3


Whilst my natural reaction to this is "good", it does raise the
question of whether assistance dogs are special

They are undoubtedly very well trained to behave in public.

and whether private hire drivers are allowed to refuse passengers
(irrespective of number of legs) for any reason and if so what?

"No Blacks, Irish or dogs".
--
Roland Perry

TfL, Guide Dogs and Minicab Drivers
 

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 14:08:34 +0100, Someone Somewhere
wrote:

On 25/08/2017 10:45, Robin9 wrote:
TfL have announced that they have successfully prosecuted 21 private
hire drivers for not accepting assistance dogs between February 2015
and May 2017. One driver was ordered to pay £1,488 after trying to
charge
extra for carrying an assistance dog.

http://tinyurl.com/y7pr5sg3


Whilst my natural reaction to this is "good",

Agreed.

it does raise the question
of whether assistance dogs are special and whether private hire drivers
are allowed to refuse passengers (irrespective of number of legs) for
any reason and if so what?

The days of private proprietors being able to "Refuse service for any
reason" are over. It's different for public bodies of course.

I doubt any minicab driver would get into trouble for refusing
to accept a passenger who was drunk or aggressive. I think
they would also be allowed to reject a passenger who refused
to pay in advance.

TfL, Guide Dogs and Minicab Drivers
 

"Someone Somewhere" wrote in message
...
On 25/08/2017 10:45, Robin9 wrote:
TfL have announced that they have successfully prosecuted 21 private
hire drivers for not accepting assistance dogs between February 2015
and May 2017. One driver was ordered to pay £1,488 after trying to
charge
extra for carrying an assistance dog.

http://tinyurl.com/y7pr5sg3


Whilst my natural reaction to this is "good", it does raise the question
of whether assistance dogs are special

the dogs themselves aren't special

but their owners are

without their dogs these people are generally housebound,

and society has decided that that would be unacceptable

so they are given rights (to insist on being allowed to take their dogs to
restricted places) that others don't have

and whether private hire drivers are allowed to refuse passengers
(irrespective of number of legs) for any reason and if so what?

they can refuse to carry someone for any non-discriminative [1] reason

Good luck with proving that you refused to carry a blind person (plus dog)
on that lawful basis

tim

[1] not limited to the discussion here on disability

TfL, Guide Dogs and Minicab Drivers
 

On 28/08/2017 13:31, tim... wrote:


"Someone Somewhere" wrote in message
...
On 25/08/2017 10:45, Robin9 wrote:
TfL have announced that they have successfully prosecuted 21 private
hire drivers for not accepting assistance dogs between February 2015
and May 2017. One driver was ordered to pay £1,488 after trying to
charge
extra for carrying an assistance dog.

http://tinyurl.com/y7pr5sg3


Whilst my natural reaction to this is "good", it does raise the
question of whether assistance dogs are special

the dogs themselves aren't special

but their owners are

without their dogs these people are generally housebound,

....

Good luck with proving that you refused to carry a blind person (plus
dog) on that lawful basis


You seem to be suggesting that I am somewhat against this - I suggest
you re-read my post to ascertain that I was asking a legitimate question
whilst stating (and starting) with the premise that I thought it was a
good thing these drivers had been prosecuted.

I know London Black taxi drivers have to take a fare if it is within XX
miles of Charing Cross or whatever (although we've all heard of the
"south of the river - not this time of night" responses), but outside of
general discrimination law which was can assume is all encompassing can
private hire vehicles turn people away - for example, too drunk, too
fat, too full of rhinovirus or similar?

TfL, Guide Dogs and Minicab Drivers
 

"Someone Somewhere" wrote in message
...
On 28/08/2017 13:31, tim... wrote:


"Someone Somewhere" wrote in message
...
On 25/08/2017 10:45, Robin9 wrote:
TfL have announced that they have successfully prosecuted 21 private
hire drivers for not accepting assistance dogs between February 2015
and May 2017. One driver was ordered to pay £1,488 after trying to
charge
extra for carrying an assistance dog.

http://tinyurl.com/y7pr5sg3


Whilst my natural reaction to this is "good", it does raise the question
of whether assistance dogs are special

the dogs themselves aren't special

but their owners are

without their dogs these people are generally housebound,

...

Good luck with proving that you refused to carry a blind person (plus
dog) on that lawful basis


You seem to be suggesting that I am somewhat against this

no

the "you" was just a general person.

it wasn't meant to imply "YOU"

tim