A taxi driver refused to take a blind passenger with her guide dog to hospital because he said he was severely allergic to dogs.
Ashish Madhubhai Mistry (41) pleaded guilty in Leicester Magistrates' Court to failing to accept a booking by a disabled passenger accompanied by an assistance dog on August 11, 2015. He was fined £350 with £215 costs and £35 victim surcharge, which he agreed to pay at £150 per month.
Andrew Burton for Leicester City Council said that the Swift Fox Cabs taxi company was called by a support worker at the Dawn Centre, Conduit Street, Leicester city centre, to take two passengers, one with a guide dog, to Leicester Royal Infirmary.
When Mistry arrived he refused to carry them because one had a dog with her.
Mr Burton said: "He said he had a phobia and was allergic to dogs, then drove away leaving the two ladies on the pavement. The law allows refusal (to carry a passenger) on medical grounds but evidence of this and a medical exemption certificate is needed to prove it."
Mr Burton said Mistry had agreed he did not have a certificate, claiming he was in the process of applying for one, but then admitted he did not know he needed one.
Dav Mahet, for Mistry, told the court how he had driven taxis for six years and, in 2013, had developed a severe allergy.
"At first the cause was unknown to him - he thought it was down to some types of milk - but in May 2015 he was taken to hospital where it was discovered it was because of pets. He had taken his son to a pet shop when the reactions took place."
He said when he accepted the fare from the Dawn Centre no mention had been made that there was a guide dog involved.
Mr Mahet said Mistry had now applied to the council for the necessary paperwork to show how his allergy and phobia prevented him from coming into contact with dogs, whether assistant or not.
Tracey Whitehead, director of Swift Fox Cabs, said: "Any driver who has an allergy to dogs must prove this to LCC in order to obtain this exemption certificate. I am sure Mr Mistry regrets his actions and is very sorry for this mistake. However Mr Mistry failed to follow proper procedures and did not do this. Therefore he has paid the price and has quite rightly been punished by the courts.”
