A man who in 2019 received a cease and desist order of 5. received euros for carrying out illegal taxi transport, made another mistake in 2019. He denied this on appeal and furthermore stated that, because he is dependent on a Wajong benefit, he cannot pay the amount. However, the judge did not agree.
The man has on 28 February 2019 was ordered subject to a penalty. Since 1 March 2019, this means that every time he performs taxi rides on the Amsterdam boarding market without a permit 5.750 must pay euros, with a maximum of 28.750 euros. At the time, the man did not object to this.
A supervisor of the municipality of Amsterdam, however, saw him on Friday 6 March 2019 at the entrance of a hotel, where parking is prohibited. He would have stood here for a long time in a vehicle with a blue number plate and a taxi roof light. The supervisor, on the other hand, did not see a Taxxxi window card and the vehicle also had no characteristics of a TTO.
Stalled due to engine failure When the supervisor asked him why he was standing still at this location, he said that his engine was malfunctioning. He would stand for ten minutes and then see if he could continue driving. The supervisor agreed, but had the man remove his skylight to make it clear that he was not available. This he did.
Read also: Thousands of taxis suffer from poor enforcement of the boarding market
A little later, the vehicle with roof light was seen driving again by the supervisor. A man got in with him. The supervisor spoke to the passenger and asked him if he had ordered the taxi. He said he called the man, but wouldn’t show it on his phone. When asked the same question again, he indicated that he did not want to get the driver into trouble. The driver then looked in the man’s call history and saw that his last call was not with the passenger.
Financial capacity not taken into account The Municipal Executive of Amsterdam sent him a letter in response to this incident informing him that he must pay the penalty. The man did not agree to this and argued on appeal that he does not have an employment contract, is not registered as a self-employed person in the sector and has a Wajong benefit. According to the commission, this does not mean that he could not carry out illegal taxi transport. Moreover, his call history did not show that he had recruited the customer on the call market.
It was therefore again concluded that the man had illegally offered taxi transport and a penalty payment is in order. It is also not necessary to take into account his financial capacity. An exception only applies if it is clear enough that as an offender he is unable to pay the penalty payment (in full). However, the man has not demonstrated this.
Read also: Taxi centers want despite did not press back to pre-corona capacity