Author Topic: Limo driver up in court  (Read 410 times)

Offline silverbullet

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26693
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • You don't want to do it like that
Limo driver up in court
« on: November 30, 2025, 07:01:29 pm »
Yes, I thought it was Derek O'Keeffe first too, but no:

https://www.donegaldaily.com/2025/11/30/limo-driver-fined-for-taxi-regulations-breach-at-sliabh-liag/

Limo driver fined for taxi regulations breach at Sliabh Liag
November 30, 2025
A limousine driver working with a tour group at Sliabh Liag has been fined after a National Transport Authority inspector found he was not “logged on” to the vehicle he was driving.

Peter Leahy, of Ballyglass, Old Longford Toad, Mullingar, appeared at Glenties District Court after he didn’t give the NTA prior notification of his driving.

Mr Leahy was charged that on July 10, 2025 he did operate a mechanically propelled vehicle as a small public service vehicle without notifying the authority of the proposed driving of such vehicle. The offence is contrary to regulations 51 (1) and 64 of the Taxi Regulations (small public service vehicles) 2025 and did commit an offence under section 20 (4) (b) of the Taxi Regulations Act 2013.

Solicitor Mr Michael MacCarthy from Coughlan White & Partners, for the National Transport Authority, said the regulations require the holder of a licence driving a small public service vehicle to notify the NTA about the driving of the vehicle. He said this was to ensure “transparency, safety and traceability”.

An inspector from the National Transport Authority told Judge Emile Daly that he observed a motor vehicle, a Mercedes limousine, and said he discovered that there was no driver associated with the vehicle.

“A driver is supposed to be linked to or associated with the vehicle,” the inspector said. He told the court that Mr Leahy admitted to driving the vehicle and said he was on tour with a number of people from America.

Mr Leahy told the inspector on the day that he works on the tours from March to September and “could be on any number of vehicles and frequently changes”.

A fixed charge penalty notice of €200 was issued and rose to €300 after an initial period elapsed. The inspector said the office was contacted by Mr Leahy to say that he lost the initial notice and when he went to pay it, the ticket had expired.

The inspector said Mr Leahy was “cooperative” and has no previous convictions.

Judge Daly said she accepted that the issue was an “error”.

Addressing the court, Mr Leahy said he is a fully qualified and licensed holder. “We pay a lot of money to be a holder,” Mr Leahy said, expressing the view that this matter is a “very small technicality”.

He explained that you get automatically logged onto a vehicle and if someone else takes that vehicle you are automatically logged off.”

Mr Leahy said the company is “working six months to make 12 months”. He said when he was approached by the inspector he was at the top of Sliabh Liag and had no coverage to log on.

Judge Daly fined Mr Leahy €320 and awarded costs to the NTA of €200.

Judge Daly explained that she could not go below the FCPN figure for the fine as it would “undermine the system”


Offline taxi1990

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3666
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Limo driver up in court
« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2025, 08:33:41 pm »
That is what we are dealing with. Fuckin NTA.  >:(

They dont bother their arse catching the most prolific unlicensed taxis but love the easy catch like this guy. 

Offline Rat Catcher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26799
  • Karma: +34/-65535
  • Part Time Amateur Scum
Re: Limo driver up in court
« Reply #2 on: December 01, 2025, 09:56:55 am »
Couldn't catch a cold!
If it doesn't have a roof sign and door stickers it's not a taxi.

Offline watty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8650
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Limo driver up in court
« Reply #3 on: December 01, 2025, 10:01:34 am »
It was the basis of a potentially interesting defence?  What if another licenced driver drove the limo to the top of the mountain, hopped out, and walked away.  Then when he jumped in, he tried to register on the app but he couldn't because he was on the top of the mountain with no signal.  So it wasn't his fault, it was the telephone network's fault for a weak signal...

If I was a barrister, I could charge you €10k for that expert advice  yay
Getting old is compulsory whilst growing up is voluntary.

Offline silverbullet

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26693
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • You don't want to do it like that
Re: Limo driver up in court
« Reply #4 on: December 01, 2025, 07:24:18 pm »
It was the basis of a potentially interesting defence?  What if another licenced driver drove the limo to the top of the mountain, hopped out, and walked away.  Then when he jumped in, he tried to register on the app but he couldn't because he was on the top of the mountain with no signal.  So it wasn't his fault, it was the telephone network's fault for a weak signal...

If I was a barrister, I could charge you €10k for that expert advice  yay
Your Honour, radio signals are clearer at the top of hills as AI  will attest:

Phone signals are generally better on mountains than in valleys because higher elevation improves the line of sight to the nearest cell towers. Valleys, on the other hand, are often "dead zones" or "shadow zones" where the surrounding terrain blocks signals.

I rest the case for the prosecution M'Lud!!



 8)

Offline Horse

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7706
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Limo driver up in court
« Reply #5 on: December 01, 2025, 08:42:49 pm »
He could say he jumped in at the top of the mountain and as he entered the valley below he tried to register but his device had no signal in the canyon. M'lud.

 


Show Unread Posts