Taxi soiling fee - Driver followed me for 5km

ELM327

lawred2 wrote: »

oh ffs as if that happened

So we choose what to disregard from the OP but believe other parts?

lawred2

ELM327 wrote: »

So we choose what to disregard from the OP but believe other parts?

Well believe whatever you want but I wouldn't quite trust anyone's sense of measurement after a night out...

5km in heels after alcohol?

Don't make me laugh

Peregrinus

ELM327 wrote: »

The soiler.. and not the others... is liable for an appropriate fee which is relative to the amount of soiling - which is limited by statute to a maximum of 140.

All the people in a group travelling in a taxi are jointly liable for all the charges.

ELM327 wrote: »

You cannot charge 140 for a small drop for instance. The driver must have incurred damages and the recompense is proportional to said damages.

The volume of vomit is irrelevant. If the car hast to be taken out of service for a period to be cleaned and deodorised, the loss of revenue resulting from that is not proportional to the volume of spew.

A charge of less than 140 might be appropriate where the soiling is caused by something less offensive, and/or more easily or quickly cleaned up, than vomit. But if you puke in somebody else's car, expect to pay handsomely for it. Only right.

Wheety

The taxi followed the OP for 5KM through a dark park? This is around 45mins if walking briskly. It'd take longer if you're arguing and drunk.

ELM327

Peregrinus wrote: »

All the people in a group travelling in a taxi are jointly liable for all the charges.

Documented where by statute please? Considering this is dealt with by statute (the max fine) then surely it must be documented somewhere if the person(s) who have not caused the soiling are expected to pay.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The volume of vomit is irrelevant. If the car hast to be taken out of service for a period to be cleaned and deodorised, the loss of revenue resulting from that is not proportional to the volume of spew.

A charge of less than 140 might be appropriate where the soiling is caused by something less offensive, and/or more easily or quickly cleaned up, than vomit. But if you puke in somebody else's car, expect to pay handsomely for it. Only right.

The amount of vomit is absolutely relevant. It is specified that you cannot charge the 140 regardless, it must be proportional to the costs incurred by the driver.

theyoungchap

Regardless of whether there was a bit of puke or not, is irrelevant. The taxi driver needed to go off and get it cleaned and was out of pocket for a while.
The entitlement and disregard of people in Ireland today is incredible, "ah sure its only a bit of vomit". What would you say if she vomited in your car? Or beside where you work? The car probably still stinks even after cleaning it.
He should have called the Gardai and that would have been proper order.
People getting sick in a taxi is complete b****x by the way - effing tell the taxi driver to pull over and put your head out.
For what its worth, I remember an altercation between my flat mate and a taxi driver a few years ago. 2 days later the Gardai knocked on the door....
But overall, I am calling BS on the entire story.

Peregrinus

ELM327 wrote: »

Documented where by statute please? Considering this is dealt with by statute (the max fine) then surely it must be documented somewhere if the person(s) who have not caused the soiling are expected to pay.

OK. Since you ask. Bear with me.

The first thing to note is that a soiling charge is a "fare". It's included in the prescribed fares set out in the Taxi Regulation Act 2003 (Maximum Fares) Order 2008. (This is the instrument that sets the maximum the driver can charge at €140.)

The second thing to note is that there is nothing in that instrument to say that a driver ever has to charge less than €140. He can charge any amount, provided it does not exceed €140. Passengers are free to bargain for a lesser charge, but they would be wise to do this before they soil the car. Their bargaining position is not strong afterwards.

Right. Where fares are regulated by a maximum charges order (as this one is), a "person who has hired" a taxi is obliged to pay the fare; Taxi Regulation Act 2003 s.40(3). You could possibly argue that only the person who actually hailed the taxi and spoke to the driver has hired the taxi, and that any other passengers are travelling on his dollar, so to speak. On that analysis, if anyone in the car pukes, it's the person (or persons) who actually hailed the taxi and/or spoke to the driver who have to pay. But the more usual interpretation is that that person is acting on behalf of the group; they are all hirers of the taxi together (a "shared hire") and they are jointly liable for the obligations of the hirer. Either way, there is no case for saying that the person who actually pukes has sole, or even special, liability for the charge.

ELM327 wrote: »

The amount of vomit is absolutely relevant. It is specified that you cannot charge the 140 regardless, it must be proportional to the costs incurred by the driver.

The charging order doesn't say that the charge must be proportional to the costs actually incurred. It just says that €140 is the maximum. Anything below that is a matter for agreement between the driver and the hirer(s).

But, even if it did say that the charge must be proportional to the costs, the costs of cleaning up vomit are not really related to the amount of vomit involved, as already pointed out.

ELM327

Peregrinus wrote: »

OK. Since you ask. Bear with me.

The first thing to note is that a soiling charge is a "fare". It's included in the prescribed fares set out in the Taxi Regulation Act 2003 (Maximum Fares) Order 2008. (This is the instrument that sets the maximum the driver can charge at €140.)

The second thing to note is that there is nothing in that instrument to say that a driver ever has to charge less than €140. He can charge what he likes, provided it does not exceed €140. Passengers are free to bargain for a lesser charge, but they would be wise to do this before they soil the car. Their bargaining position is not strong afterwards.

Right. Where fares are regulated by a maximum charges order (as this one is), a "person who has hired" a taxi is obliged to pay the fare; Taxi Regulation Act 2003 s.40(3). You could possibly argue that only the person who actually hailed the taxi and spoke to the driver has hired the taxi, and that any other passengers are travelling on his dollar, so to speak. On that analysis, if anyone in the car pukes, it's the person (or persons) who actually hailed the taxi and/or spoke to the driver who have to pay. But the more usual interpretation is that that person is acting on behalf of the group; they are all hirers of the taxi together (a "shared hire") and they are jointly liable for the obligations of the hirer. Either way, there is no case for saying that the person who actually pukes has sole, or even special, liability for the charge.


The charging order doesn't say that the charge must be proportional to the costs actually incurred. It just says that €140 is the maximum. Anything below that is a matter for agreement between the driver and the hirer(s).

But, even if it did say that the charge must be proportional to the costs, the costs of cleaning up vomit are not really related to the amount of vomit involved, as already pointed out.

The soiling charge is not mentioned in the act you quote.
"Taxi Regulation Act 2003 (Maximum Fares) Order 2008"


There is nothing prescribing that the collective passenger group is eligible for the soiling.


Next?

ELM327

theyoungchap wrote: »

Regardless of whether there was a bit of puke or not, is irrelevant. The taxi driver needed to go off and get it cleaned and was out of pocket for a while.
The entitlement and disregard of people in Ireland today is incredible, "ah sure its only a bit of vomit". What would you say if she vomited in your car? Or beside where you work? The car probably still stinks even after cleaning it.
He should have called the Gardai and that would have been proper order.
People getting sick in a taxi is complete b****x by the way - effing tell the taxi driver to pull over and put your head out.
For what its worth, I remember an altercation between my flat mate and a taxi driver a few years ago. 2 days later the Gardai knocked on the door....
But overall, I am calling BS on the entire story.

If I scratched one panel on your car less than 1 mm deep would you replace all panels or just get it fixed/replaced and my insurace would pay costs ?
You don't get to profit from damages incurred. Charging the maximum for a minimal amount of damage is not on.

Peregrinus

ELM327 wrote: »

The soiling charge is not mentioned in the act you quote.
"Taxi Regulation Act 2003 (Maximum Fares) Order 2008"

Read more carefully. It's on page 5.

ELM327 wrote: »

There is nothing prescribing that the collective passenger group is eligible for the soiling.

I know that. As I said already, that's in Taxi Regulation Act 2003 s.40(3)

ELM327 wrote: »

Next?

Karma's a bitch, isn't it?

ELM327

Peregrinus wrote: »

Read more carefully. It's on page 5.


I know that. As I said already, that's in Taxi Regulation Act 2003 s.40(3)


Karma's a bitch, isn't it?

Karma has nothing to do with it, don't know why you are getting your panties in a twist.


All that does is list what the fee is, no descriptor as to what it is for. Therefore there must be another act that lists the parameters. Otherwise you (and I'm assuming you're a taxi driver due to your abrupt communication) could charge it for anything?

Peregrinus

ELM327 wrote: »

All that does is list what the fee is, no descriptor as to what it is for. Therefore there must be another act that lists the parameters. Otherwise you (and I'm assuming you're a taxi driver due to your abrupt communication) could charge it for anything?

No, you can charge it for soiling. It's a soiling charge. This shouldn't be that hard to grasp.

ELM327

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, you can charge it for soiling. It's a soiling charge. This shouldn't be that hard to grasp.

What rank do you work from, so I can avoid you?

PlaneSpeeking

ELM327 wrote: »

Spot the taxi driver

Hahahah not at all!!

I can;t even drive for one thing! (Though that isn't necessarily a drawback!)

weldoninhio

Peregrinus wrote: »

All the people in a group travelling in a taxi are jointly liable for all the charges.


The volume of vomit is irrelevant. If the car hast to be taken out of service for a period to be cleaned and deodorised, the loss of revenue resulting from that is not proportional to the volume of spew.

A charge of less than 140 might be appropriate where the soiling is caused by something less offensive, and/or more easily or quickly cleaned up, than vomit. But if you puke in somebody else's car, expect to pay handsomely for it. Only right.

Got anything to back this up?

ELM327

weldoninhio wrote: »

Got anything to back this up?

I asked, but apparently it's "not hard to grasp" whatever that means.

PlaneSpeeking

The utter sense of entitlement, p***ing (literally!) over service workers and getting away with anything - what craic! - is horrendous to watch here.

weldoninhio

Peregrinus wrote: »

OK. Since you ask. Bear with me.

The first thing to note is that a soiling charge is a "fare". It's included in the prescribed fares set out in the Taxi Regulation Act 2003 (Maximum Fares) Order 2008. (This is the instrument that sets the maximum the driver can charge at €140.)

The second thing to note is that there is nothing in that instrument to say that a driver ever has to charge less than €140. He can charge any amount, provided it does not exceed €140. Passengers are free to bargain for a lesser charge, but they would be wise to do this before they soil the car. Their bargaining position is not strong afterwards.

Right. Where fares are regulated by a maximum charges order (as this one is), a "person who has hired" a taxi is obliged to pay the fare; Taxi Regulation Act 2003 s.40(3). You could possibly argue that only the person who actually hailed the taxi and spoke to the driver has hired the taxi, and that any other passengers are travelling on his dollar, so to speak. On that analysis, if anyone in the car pukes, it's the person (or persons) who actually hailed the taxi and/or spoke to the driver who have to pay. But the more usual interpretation is that that person is acting on behalf of the group; they are all hirers of the taxi together (a "shared hire") and they are jointly liable for the obligations of the hirer. Either way, there is no case for saying that the person who actually pukes has sole, or even special, liability for the charge.


The charging order doesn't say that the charge must be proportional to the costs actually incurred. It just says that €140 is the maximum. Anything below that is a matter for agreement between the driver and the hirer(s).

But, even if it did say that the charge must be proportional to the costs, the costs of cleaning up vomit are not really related to the amount of vomit involved, as already pointed out.

Wrong.

Apart from the fare calculated on time/distance and rate, the driver can charge extra for the following:



And Wrong.

Soiling – a fee may be charged where a passenger either soils the vehicle or damages it so much that the driver has to take it out of service or has to pay to have it cleaned or repaired. The maximum such fee is €140, but the actual fee charged may be lower – it should reflect the costs reasonably incurred by the operator;

doolox

Taxis have to have sealed meters set up by the Carriage Office when there are rate rises etc. Most people ask for and get receipts and this leaves a paper trail of the fares collected and an indication of the money earned by the driver. It is a simple matter of checking mileage and fuel used over a tax year to come up with a good estimate of earnings for a taxi driver.

The number of taxi drivers in the taxpaying population (large) and their percentage in the self employed sector ( also large) make it too obvious a sector to ignore. You can bet the taxman has his eyes on the taxi drivers for any major form of evasion.

Pelvis

ELM327 wrote: »

I asked, but apparently it's "not hard to grasp" whatever that means.

You asked if a taxi driver could charge a soiling fee for *anything* as the document you were linked to doesn't describe what the soiling fee is for.

It was pointed out to you that the soiling fee... is for soiling.

JustAThought

How nasty. She allows her friend to feck off after puking in the car, has an argument with the taxi driver when he notices over the souling charge, then tries to do a runner with her 'boyfriend' - who also escapes/fecks off -she then tries to get put of it climbing walls etc & he videos her as evidence -and all the poster above yhe last one can add is that he might be avoiding his financial duties? Try and have a bit of class. How about picking her up in her responsibilities. Vomit dosn"t smell my aras. And man up to the responsibilities you were part of - of course had you got the money off yiur friend who puked up before yiu let yhem off into the night you wouldnt have had the problem but you were trying to cheat the taxidriver even then. I hope your face is up on every rank to not pick up. That is the mans workplace and livliehood. Would you be as quick to puke up on someone office desk or chair and then scream entitlement. Disgusting behaviour.

ELM327

Pelvis wrote: »

You asked if a taxi driver could charge a soiling fee for *anything* as the document you were linked to doesn't describe what the soiling fee is for.

It was pointed out to you that the soiling fee... is for soiling.

It is listed as a soiling fee but there is no list as to what it is for or indeed when or why it can be charged.


I don't get why this is so hard for you to grasp.

Hitman3000

ELM327 wrote:

It is listed as a soiling fee but there is no list as to what it is for or indeed when or why it can be charged.

A soiling fee is a charge that is applied if the car has to be removed from service either because of being made unfit to carry a fare or through damage. The driver can seek a charge up to 140 euro. This is to cover the cost of cleaning and loss of earning if the vehicle is off the road. When I was a taxi driver I charged the full amount allowable. The smell of vomit or strong food is difficult to remove from a car plus the seats mats have to dry out. 140 is not unreasonable particularly on a busy Friday or Saturday night.

weldoninhio

JustAThought wrote: »

How nasty. She allows her friend to feck off after puking in the car, has an argument with the taxi driver when he notices over the souling charge, then tries to do a runner with her 'boyfriend' - who also escapes/fecks off -she then tries to get put of it climbing walls etc & he videos her as evidence -and all the poster above yhe last one can add is that he might be avoiding his financial duties? Try and have a bit of class. How about picking her up in her responsibilities. Vomit dosn"t smell my aras. And man up to the responsibilities you were part of - of course had you got the money off yiur friend who puked up before yiu let yhem off into the night you wouldnt have had the problem but you were trying to cheat the taxidriver even then. I hope your face is up on every rank to not pick up. That is the mans workplace and livliehood. Would you be as quick to puke up on someone office desk or chair and then scream entitlement. Disgusting behaviour.

1. She is not her friends mother/keeper.

2. OP had not done anything wrong to "put (sic) out of".

3. She is not responsible for her friend. See point 1.

4. She is not responsible for her friend. See point 1.

5. She is not her friends mother/keeper.

6. OP didn't puke anywhere.

ELM327

Hitman3000 wrote: »

A soiling fee is a charge that is applied if the car has to be removed from service either because of being made unfit to carry a fare or through damage. The driver can seek a charge up to 140 euro. This is to cover the cost of cleaning and loss of earning if the vehicle is off the road. When I was a taxi driver I charged the full amount allowable. The smell of vomit or strong food is difficult to remove from a car plus the seats mats have to dry out. 140 is not unreasonable particularly on a busy Friday or Saturday night.

The charge is up to, and is not a set 140.
I do not accept for one second that every "soiling" is coincidentally the maximum allowed.


Please refer to previous quotes from the taxi regulator and the act themselves which clarify this.

Hitman3000

ELM327 wrote:

The charge is up to, and is not a set 140. I do not accept for one second that every "soiling" is coincidentally the maximum allowed.

It doesn't matter whether you accept it or bot. When I drove if I had to come off the road due to the behaviour of a fare I sought the max allowable and always received. Parking outside a Garda station always concentrated the mind of the person's responsible. You fail to realise that income is being lost while a car is out of service and cleaning costs are liable. What fee do you think is acceptable just out of curiosity?

JustAThought

weldoninhio wrote: »

1. She is not her friends mother/keeper.

2. OP had not done anything wrong to "put (sic) out of".

3. She is not responsible for her friend. See point 1.

4. She is not responsible for her friend. See point 1.

5. She is not her friends mother/keeper.

6. OP didn't puke anywhere.

She covered up for her friend when she was sick & then without getting the soiling fee from her allowed her friend to leave the taxi knowing she had done damage to the car & puked up - she negotiated a fee - then did a runner as did the other person in the car -her 'boyfriend'. Some set of skobies in that car that night.

weldoninhio

JustAThought wrote: »

She covered up for her friend when she was sick & then without getting the soiling fee from her allowed her friend to leave the taxi knowing she had done damage to the car & puked up - she negotiated a fee - then did a runner as did the other person in the car -her 'boyfriend'. Some set of skobies in that car that night.

I'll refer you to point 1.


1. She is not her friends mother/keeper.

JustAThought

By involving herself in hiding the puking she was. I bet she didnt offer the friends address or show him where she lived to allow him to get the money due to him? No -she involved herself in protecting her friend and lying to the taxidriver. She became her friends dirty enabler and minder/keeper. I hope he does back to cctv and gets the gaurds involved. Dirty self entitled parasites.

weldoninhio

JustAThought wrote: »

By involving herself in hiding the puking she was. I bet she didnt offer the friends address or show him where she lived to allow him to get the money due to him? No -she involved herself in protecting her friend and lying to the taxidriver. She became her friends dirty enabler and munder/keeper. I hope he does back to cctv and gets the gaurds involved. Dirty self entitled parasites.

I'm not sure you understand point 1. Maybe ask someone to explain it to you.

1. She is not her friends mother/keeper.

Edit: If you have to resort to making things up, you have lost the argument.