Posted on the 18th December 2025 in PHTM News

'UNFIT FOR THE ROAD': DUDLEY COUNCIL BARS DRIVERS OVER REVOKED LICENCES AND FORGED DOCUMENTS

Minutes of Dudley’s Taxis Committee have provided an insight into a string of "incredible" licence applications and reviews.

The records detail a year of crackdowns on individuals deemed not "fit and proper" to operate, including drivers attempting to run cabs without legal driving licences.

A recurring theme throughout the year’s meetings was the failure of applicants to disclose criminal histories or legal troubles.

In February, an applicant known as AM saw their application rejected after the committee discovered previous convictions, including "dishonesty," which had been omitted from the official form.

Similarly, in March, a driver identified as SM faced a licence review that uncovered a double layer of deception: his driving licence had been revoked, and he had failed to declare an ongoing case at Birmingham Magistrates' Court. Consequently, his taxi licence was revoked “in the interests of public safety.”

The committee also dealt with allegations of inappropriate behavior and fraudulent documentation:

  • Inappropriate Conduct: In July, a driver referred to as MAR was ruled unsuitable after failing to explain “inappropriate conduct towards female passengers and plying for hire.”

  • Uber Forgery: That same month, driver YM was blocked from renewing his licence after he committed a “serious offence by submitting false documents to Uber.”

  • Multiple Offences: In April and September, drivers AA and SB both saw their licences revoked following “numerous offences” and the discovery that their DVLA licences were no longer valid.

The committee, which usually meets in private to protect identities, emphasised that public safety remains the priority. In many cases, it was not just the original offences that led to bans, but the drivers' attempts to hide them.

While some drivers were allowed to retain their licences after review, they were issued “stern warnings about their future behaviour.”

 However, for those such as AA and SM, the committee was unmoved by their explanations, concluding that their history of non-disclosure and legal disqualification made them a risk to the community.


Read another story