TucTuc Ltd's £13,500 fine quashed
The firm behind Europe's
first fleet of tuk-tuks
has had a £13,500
fine quashed on appeal.
The penalty for taking
the vehicles off the road
without warning was
described by the Transport
Tribunal as "grossly disproportionate"
as it overturned
the fine.
The three-wheelers had
operated in Brighton and
Hove for almost two years
before being withdrawn
suddenly last September.
The firm was called to a
public inquiry which was
told it had broken the conditions
of its public service
vehicle licence by retiring
the fleet without giving the
statutory 56-day notice.
TucTuc Ltd director
Dominic Ponniah told the
hearing his insurance company
had suspended its
cover on August 30 following
an accident in 2006.
Bus compliance officer
Lance Cheetham visited
Brighton on August 29 and
September 4, 2007. On his
first visit he only observed
one vehicle on the road. On
September 4, the booking
office at Brighton Marina
was no longer there.
The Traffic Commissioner
imposed the £13,500
fine after ruling TucTuc
Ltd had breached the regulations.
Mr Ponniah appealed
and the London-based
Transport Tribunal overruled
the decision.
The tribunal's report
reads: "The Traffic Commissioner
seems to have
considered a penalty was to
be paid for the company's
failure to give early notice
of cancellation and to cooperate
with the traffic
area office.
"Unlike the previous
appeal when the issue was
failing to comply with registered
particulars, in this
case a penalty was only
payable if there had been a
failure to operate a local
service' and if this was
without reasonable
excuse'. The former was
unchallenged.
"We think tuk-tuks
should be viewed as the
provision of tourist services
rather than public
passenger carriage and the
penalty imposed was punitive
and unnecessary for
any regulatory purpose."
This is the second time
Mr Ponniah has been
handed a hefty fine only for
it to be cut on appeal.
The first was a £16,000
bill, halved on appeal, after
the service failed to meet
its timetable.
Mr Ponniah said: "I am
elated by this decision.
"The Traffic Commissioner
has made yet
another extremely poor
decision and that has been
recognised by the tribunal.
"This decision enshrines
the new case law we have
laid down that our service
is unique and cannot be
treated as a traditional
public transport service."
A spokesman for the
Traffic Commissioner said:
"The Transport Tribunal
has simply taken a different
view from the Traffic
Commissioner with regard
to the financial penalties,
which is the purpose of
such an appeal."
1:33pm Tuesday 13th May 2008
Print 
Email this
CommentPosted by: homer, springfield on 2:18pm Tue 13 May 08
this effectively means that the tuk-tuk's can run whenever, and wherever they want, and do not need a timetable. this will have the cabbies spitting feathers. tuk-tuk's are a bit of fun for the tourists to brighton and are no threat to either buses or taxis. they just provide an extra, fun option of travelling round the city. by the way, i am not involved with ANY public transport in brighton, i am just a regular visitor to your city, and use all forms of transport while i am there.
this effectively means that the tuk-tuk's can run whenever, and wherever they want, and do not need a timetable. this will have the cabbies spitting feathers. tuk-tuk's are a bit of fun for the tourists to brighton and are no threat to either buses or taxis. they just provide an extra, fun option of travelling round the city. by the way, i am not involved with ANY public transport in brighton, i am just a regular visitor to your city, and use all forms of transport while i am there.
Posted by: Hector, China on 3:32pm Tue 13 May 08
The Tuk-Tuk's advertising was misleading as my family and I went to use one in the summer we expected to pay three quid - as this is what it said on the side. Actually they wanted three quid per head (four of us) to go from the Palace Pier to the West Pier. Bonkers. Good riddance to them and their take-on advertising.
The Tuk-Tuk's advertising was misleading as my family and I went to use one in the summer we expected to pay three quid - as this is what it said on the side. Actually they wanted three quid per head (four of us) to go from the Palace Pier to the West Pier. Bonkers. Good riddance to them and their take-on advertising.
Posted by: me, brighton on 4:18pm Tue 13 May 08
[quote][bold]homer[/bold] wrote:
this effectively means that the tuk-tuk\'s can run whenever, and wherever they want, and do not need a timetable. this will have the cabbies spitting feathers. tuk-tuk\'s are a bit of fun for the tourists to brighton and are no threat to either buses or taxis. they just provide an extra, fun option of travelling round the city. by the way, i am not involved with ANY public transport in brighton, i am just a regular visitor to your city, and use all forms of transport while i am there.[/quote] no the law is the same as before, your probably find the action was squashed as the company said it will not run again, sadly the greed of the company treated its staff like dogs, no sick pay, no holiday pay. the company failed because there is not enough tourists to make it work. so they tried to encroach on the bus and taxi work, you cant be a fun ride and then a serious transport. the safety issue never went away, and am happy to see that insurance companys refusing them public liability.
homer wrote:
this effectively means that the tuk-tuk\'s can run whenever, and wherever they want, and do not need a timetable. this will have the cabbies spitting feathers. tuk-tuk\'s are a bit of fun for the tourists to brighton and are no threat to either buses or taxis. they just provide an extra, fun option of travelling round the city. by the way, i am not involved with ANY public transport in brighton, i am just a regular visitor to your city, and use all forms of transport while i am there.
no the law is the same as before, your probably find the action was squashed as the company said it will not run again, sadly the greed of the company treated its staff like dogs, no sick pay, no holiday pay. the company failed because there is not enough tourists to make it work. so they tried to encroach on the bus and taxi work, you cant be a fun ride and then a serious transport. the safety issue never went away, and am happy to see that insurance companys refusing them public liability.
Posted by: Taxi Driver, with an oversized butt squashing the heck out of a driver's seat on 7:07pm Tue 13 May 08
Moan moan moan, serves them right, moan moan.
I'm a taxi driver, moan moan moan moan.
Do you know who I had in the cab last night?
Moan moan moan, moan moan moan.
Tuk-tuks? Moan moan moan.
Moan.
Moan moan moan, serves them right, moan moan.
I'm a taxi driver, moan moan moan moan.
Do you know who I had in the cab last night?
Moan moan moan, moan moan moan.
Tuk-tuks? Moan moan moan.
Moan.
Posted by: joe d taxi, down town on 8:38pm Tue 13 May 08
now that they have gone time to deregulate the taxi trade flood the town with taxis an up thoes gready gits that paid bundles for there plates
now that they have gone time to deregulate the taxi trade flood the town with taxis an up thoes gready gits that paid bundles for there plates
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!