Like Tree107Likes

Taxi driver rip off

Closed Thread
Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 3 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 LastLast
  1. #101

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ex Sai Kunger Sunny Qld for now
    Posts
    8,162
    Quote Originally Posted by wtbhotia:
    Jumbo paid FAT tax Waahaa
    lol.......

  2. #102

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    14,593
    Quote Originally Posted by booth:
    Please come to my side of town. Did you know that some areas charge a toll for walking.

    Sent from my GT-I9100 using GeoClicks Mobile
    Lucky for you Geoexpat does not charge a toll for trolling.
    bookblogger likes this.

  3. #103

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by audiot:
    I wasnt going to go there!

    ( I saw it and thought wow thats a taxi rip off story! )

    obviously from his SHek O retreat ...
    I think it was from my quote, which is Caine road Midlevels to the airport, which is around 4375 depending on traffic.

  4. #104

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by Raccon:
    And that puts the driver at fault. It seems some people here have only read the part of the guidelines that suit the arguments they want to have, but see 7.d. of the Guide to Taxi Services linked earlier. As long as the passenger agrees to pay the additional fare the driver should have taken you to anywhere you like for getting the change, and that obviously includes stepping out of the cab.
    That being said I would ask the driver to keep the meter running or offer him some extra for the waiting (if he refused to keep the meter running).

    In defense of taxi drivers regarding rejecting the 500 note (according to the guidelines):
    7.c. implies that the driver can still refuse 500 or 1000 even he has change, 9.c. is quite clear that the passenger should not use 500 or 1000 notes. That the driver should entertain the request for change as per 7.a. is a bit open to interpretation due to the 'as far as possible' part, but considering 7.c. and 9.c. I believe the driver is right to reject 500 or 1000 notes even he 'feels' like it.
    However as mentioned above he must take the passenger to a place where the passenger can obtain change, assuming the passenger requested or agreed to such.

    I would also consider this a mutual agreement as per 7.f.; in jimbo's case the driver obviously wasn't willing to come to a such an agreement and insisted on ripping him off. The driver is also guilty of violating parts of 8.g.

    Personally I would have reported the driver if he had locked me in (false imprisonment or whatever it's called in legal speak).
    I do not believe those Guide for Taxi services for Taxis carry the force of law. If I take a look at it from a strictly legal perspective, the fact that he has no change is his problem, and only his. You are offering to pay for services rendered with legal Hong Kong tender. If he took more, then he is committing a theft, because he is taking more money for his services, which is dictated by law. Otherwise, taxi driver's would be calling out prices all the time. You must pay what the meeter reads only.

  5. #105

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Raccon:
    No, the driver didn't work within the rules. Else show me where the driver is allowed to
    a) over-charge
    b) refuse taking a passenger to any destination (place for changing money)
    c) lock a passenger in his taxi in case of a dispute over the fare or change
    He did not overcharge, they came to a mutual agreement as to change given as per the recommendation in 7f

    He did not refuse to take the passenger, he did not let him out of the taxi without paying. If a guarantee had been made, he would/should have agreed but we'll never know...

    Where does it say that he can't lock the doors to prevent a passenger from not paying the fare? If it was illegal then why would taxis have that capability in the first place? Would a store be allowed to detain a customer suspected of stealing?

    If the police had come, they would have taken the HKID, let the meter run and then get him to pay the fare + time.

    The first one to break a rule was the customer as it clearly states not to attempt to pay with $500 or a $1000 note.

  6. #106

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,905
    Quote Originally Posted by packy_crusher:
    I do not believe those Guide for Taxi services for Taxis carry the force of law. If I take a look at it from a strictly legal perspective, the fact that he has no change is his problem, and only his. You are offering to pay for services rendered with legal Hong Kong tender. If he took more, then he is committing a theft, because he is taking more money for his services, which is dictated by law. Otherwise, taxi driver's would be calling out prices all the time. You must pay what the meeter reads only.
    Using your logic then a bus passenger with no change would be entitled to wait until it is given...
    Last edited by Editor; 19-07-2012 at 11:46 AM.

  7. #107

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    150

    That never happened to me when I lived in Melbourne :-S

    But it's pretty obvious wherever you go you have to keep on your toes with taxi drivers... They'll do what they can to make their working day shorter...


  8. #108

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by gilleshk:
    Where does it say that he can't lock the doors to prevent a passenger from not paying the fare? If it was illegal then why would taxis have that capability in the first place? Would a store be allowed to detain a customer suspected of stealing?
    Not necessarily.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_imprisonment

    I know a bar owner in New Zealand who locked a guy in his bar when he realised he couldn't pay his tab. The guy threw a bar stool through the massive shop window and fought his way out. He got off all charges, never paid his tab and the bar owner got stung with a false imprisonment charge.
    Last edited by subsist; 18-07-2012 at 02:42 PM.
    dear giant likes this.

  9. #109

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,905

    Most jurisdiction will allow a temporary detainment if customers are suspected of stealing or there is a dispute until the police arrives. Once again, if it was completely illegal in HK then why would taxis have the capability to do it? It is certainly not standard equipment in all cars.

    The fact is that he could have easily called the police to resolve the situation and he didn't...He chose to reach a mutual agreement as per section 7c


  10. #110

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    1,188