Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Taxi soiling fee - Driver followed me for 5km

Options
12357

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,914 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    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?
    I "fail to realise" nothing.


    You should be recompensed for your costs on a pro rated basis. EG to clean one small spilled liquid (eg coffee) from one floor mat. You could claim €140 by your logic. But the reality is 30 mins off the road, either a vacuum at a services with some carpet cleaner, or a replacement floor mat. Neither of which cost more than 20. Throw in double that 20 for time off the road and you're at 60 total, less than 50% of the maximum allowed.


  • Options
    #123
    Exclamation Marc
    Registered Users Posts: 11,904 ✭✭✭✭Exclamation Marc


    Its a bit irrelevant who puked in the taxi as far as the fine/fare is concerned.

    It's almost the equivalent of if a friend picks you up in a taxi half way through a fare, gets out before you without paying and you claim you're only liable for your part of the journey when it comes to shelling out.

    The people who take the taxi are liable for the fares/fines, it's joint and several liability.


  • Options
    #124
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    Exclamation Marc wrote: »
    Its a bit irrelevant who puked in the taxi as far as the fine/fare is concerned.

    It's almost the equivalent of if a friend picks you up in a taxi half way through a fare, gets out before you without paying and you claim you're only liable for your part of the journey when it comes to shelling out.

    The people who take the taxi are liable for the fares/fines, it's joint and several liability.

    As i've asked previously, Got anything to back this up?


  • Options
    #125
    Exclamation Marc
    Registered Users Posts: 11,904 ✭✭✭✭Exclamation Marc


    ELM327 wrote: »
    I "fail to realise" nothing.


    You should be recompensed for your costs on a pro rated basis. EG to clean one small spilled liquid (eg coffee) from one floor mat. You could claim €140 by your logic. But the reality is 30 mins off the road, either a vacuum at a services with some carpet cleaner, or a replacement floor mat. Neither of which cost more than 20. Throw in double that 20 for time off the road and you're at 60 total, less than 50% of the maximum allowed.

    What if a driver misses a decent airport fare? Its entirely hypothetical but wholly plausible that they miss out on a lot more. What if he's prebooked elsewhere?


  • Options
    #126
    Pelvis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭Pelvis


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    I'll refer you to point 1.


    1. She is not her friends mother/keeper.
    They are all receiving a service from the taxi driver and agreed to the terms of that service when they got in the car. The car was soiled during this time and as such they are all liable for the costs associated to that.

    If there are 4 of them and one does a runner before paying their share of the fare the others can't make the argument that they're only paying their 25% portion, they're liable for the full fare.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    Pelvis wrote: »
    They are all receiving a service from the taxi driver and agreed to the terms of that service when they got in the car. The car was soiled during this time and as such they are all liable for the costs associated to that.

    If there are 4 of them and one does a runner before paying their share of the fare the others can't make the argument that they're only paying their 25% portion, they're liable for the full fare.

    As above, got anything to back that up?? The fare is completely seperate to a soilage charge,


  • Options
    #128
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,914 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Exclamation Marc wrote: »
    Its a bit irrelevant who puked in the taxi as far as the fine/fare is concerned.

    It's almost the equivalent of if a friend picks you up in a taxi half way through a fare, gets out before you without paying and you claim you're only liable for your part of the journey when it comes to shelling out.

    The people who take the taxi are liable for the fares/fines, it's joint and several liability.
    Unsubstantiated bunkum

    Exclamation Marc wrote: »
    What if a driver misses a decent airport fare? Its entirely hypothetical but wholly plausible that they miss out on a lot more. What if he's prebooked elsewhere?


    Of course if he missed a prebooked fare there will be documented evidence and as such that would be an associated cost. If a driver tried to charge me 140 for a small coffee spill you can be damn sure it would be referred to the NTA/Taxi Regulator so he should keep said evidence as the reason I was charged 140.


  • Options
    #129
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    ELM327 wrote:
    You should be recompensed for your costs on a pro rated basis. EG to clean one small spilled liquid (eg coffee) from one floor mat. You could claim €140 by your logic. But the reality is 30 mins off the road, either a vacuum at a services with some carpet cleaner, or a replacement floor mat. Neither of which cost more than 20. Throw in double that 20 for time off the road and you're at 60 total, less than 50% of the maximum allowed.


    The OP stated her friend vomited in the car, vomit does not smell like coffee and the smell can linger. Do you expect a driver to clean up someone's vomit for free. You really are pulling the p*ss. I realise you find the charge of 140 abhorrent no problem don't soil a taxi and you'll never be faced with the charge. As I said earlier I always charged the maximum allowable and they always paid up. You take care now.


  • Options
    #130
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,914 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    The OP stated her friend vomited in the car, vomit does not smell like coffee and the smell can linger. Do you expect a driver to clean up someone's vomit for free. You really are pulling the p*ss. I realise you find the charge of 140 abhorrent no problem don't soil a taxi and you'll never be faced with the charge. As I said earlier I always charged the maximum allowable and they always paid up. You take care now.
    Threat reported.


    And that's the end of that discussion.


  • Options
    #131
    Exclamation Marc
    Registered Users Posts: 11,904 ✭✭✭✭Exclamation Marc


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Unsubstantiated bunkum

    Well your rebuttal and reasoning was top drawer. Consider me academically taught lol.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,914 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Exclamation Marc wrote: »
    Well your rebuttal and reasoning was top drawer. Consider me academically taught lol.
    It's like playing chess with a pigeon sometimes in here.
    If you post unsubstantiated tripe you can expect said tripe to be met in kind.


  • Options
    #133
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    ELM327 wrote:
    Threat reported.


    'You take care now' is a threat? .
    I've heard it all now.


  • Options
    #134
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,914 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    'You take care now' is a threat? .
    I've heard it all now.
    Since you are demonstrably incapable of reading the rest of that post I have copied it here again for your leisure.
    ELM327 wrote: »


    And that's the end of that discussion.


  • Options
    #135
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    ELM327 wrote:
    Since you are demonstrably incapable of reading the rest of that post I have copied it here again for your leisure.


    You can copy infinitum as far as I'm concerned. You are on a discussion if you feel a discussion is over by all means leave the conversation if that is your wish. However posting such nonsense as you did, you feel no response is allowed? Apply to be a Mod if you wish to stifle another poster.


  • Options
    #136
    faceman
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,599 CMod ✭✭✭✭faceman


    I’m pretty sure if this went to court, the charge for harrasing a female by following her through a park late at night and going to be a lot more severe than an unpaid spoilage fee.


  • Options
    #137
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,914 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    You can copy infinitum as far as I'm concerned. You are on a discussion if you feel a discussion is over by all means leave the conversation if that is your wish. However posting such nonsense as you did, you feel no response is allowed? Apply to be a Mod if you wish to stifle another poster.
    Any discussion between myself and you.
    You can't possibly believe otherwise.

    Shallow pedantry does not suit.


    But hey, you're a taxi driver and your attitude here bears the same fruit as your ilk when driving. Remember you're a public service.


  • Options
    #138
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    faceman wrote:
    I’m pretty sure if this went to court, the charge for harrasing a female by following her through a park late at night and going to be a lot more severe than an unpaid spoilage fee.


    Do you think a judge would find the OP credible? 5 km in high heels scaling walls etc? Fare evasion is an offence. The OP claims the other couple left the taxi first then her and her Bf no mention of fare paid or soiling fee.


  • Options
    #139
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,914 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    Do you think a judge would find the OP credible? 5 km in high heels scaling walls etc? Fare evasion is an offence. The OP claims the other couple left the taxi first then her and her Bf no mention of fare paid or soiling fee.
    There's no indication that the fare was avoided.


  • Options
    #140
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,607 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    The OP claims the other couple left the taxi first then her and her Bf no mention of fare paid or soiling fee.
    Look at the last line of the OP.


  • Options
    #141
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    osarusan wrote:
    Look at the last line of the OP.


    My bad I haven't reread the OP since yesterday. Must have missed the last bit.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    ELM327 wrote:
    But hey, you're a taxi driver and your attitude here bears the same fruit as your ilk when driving. Remember you're a public service.


    You make snide comments to others about their reading skills. I have mentioned twice on thread I used to be a taxi driver past tense. Do keep up.. Dealing with scumbags and idiots who think they are superior made me exit the industry.


  • Options
    #143
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,914 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    My bad I haven't reread the OP since yesterday. Must have missed the last bit.
    Considering there was no "edited" line, the post has not been edited since yesterday


  • Options
    #144
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,662 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    MOD: Remember attack the post, not the poster, thanks


  • Options
    #145
    irelandrover
    Registered Users Posts: 3,738 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Considering there was no "edited" line, the post has not been edited since yesterday

    He didnt say it was edited. He said he missed it.


  • Options
    #146
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    ELM327 wrote:
    Considering there was no "edited" line, the post has not been edited since yesterday


    As I said I may have missed that bit. Again you should read what I said. The soiling fee is still outstanding and should be paid.


  • Options
    #147
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,914 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    You make snide comments to others about their reading skills. I have mentioned twice on thread I used to be a taxi driver past tense. Do keep up.. Dealing with scumbags and idiots who think they are superior made me exit the industry.


    I made no snide comments.
    Merely pointed out the flippant copy & paste of half a post and leaving out the rest.



    I don't require any sort of "keeping up" with the mundane banality of your life choices. Thanks all the same.


    irelandrover wrote: »
    He didnt say it was edited. He said he missed it.


    Doth he speak for himself?


  • Options
    #148
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,914 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    As I said I may have missed that bit. Again you should read what I said. The soiling fee is still outstanding and should be paid.
    The soiling fee is not the same as the fare. I'd guess it will remain unpaid ad infinitum to be honest, given the alleged conduct of the taxi driver.


    And I "should" or "shouldn't" do whatever I please to be honest.


  • Options
    #149
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    ELM327 wrote:
    I don't require any sort of "keeping up" with the mundane banality of your life choices. Thanks all the same.


    Well then, read peoples replies instead of trying to level a juvenile insult. You have an issue with my comments fine address them, I would suggest however getting personal does you no favours.


  • Options
    #150
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ELM327 wrote: »
    I "fail to realise" nothing.


    You should be recompensed for your costs on a pro rated basis. EG to clean one small spilled liquid (eg coffee) from one floor mat. You could claim €140 by your logic. But the reality is 30 mins off the road, either a vacuum at a services with some carpet cleaner, or a replacement floor mat. Neither of which cost more than 20. Throw in double that 20 for time off the road and you're at 60 total, less than 50% of the maximum allowed.

    A driver has no way of knowing if a passenger vomits due to drink or an underlying contagious health problem. Hence the need to do a deep clean as soon as possible. This in itself causes the driver to lose earnings. As a parent, I know only too well how difficult it is to eradicate the smell of vomit from a car. Vomit tends to spray, so no matter how small the amount, the complete interior of the vehicle has to be cleaned.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Deleted User wrote:
    A driver has no way of knowing if a passenger vomits due to drink or an underlying contagious health problem. Hence the need to do a deep clean as soon as possible. This in itself causes the driver to lose earnings. As a parent, I know only too well how difficult it is to eradicate the smell of vomit from a car. Vomit tends to spray, so no matter how small the amount, the complete interior of the vehicle has to be cleaned.


    Finally some sense on this thread. Well put Maryannne.


Advertisement