Over the years there have been many convictions and there is much case law, but for illegally plying for hire.
Many touts have been arrested most take a police caution.
This is the reason why it's imperative "plying for hire" must be defined in Law when the Law commission finally submit their report.
This is the first conviction for Touting and has indeed set a precedence.
But again there is much wrong with this case.
Ignorance of the law, should not have affected the sentence.
We waited many years for LTPH to bring a case of touting to court. They always said that it would be a dangerous area.
Mason and Chapman said they were waiting for an open and shut case.....they took Diamond Chauffeurs to court....and then lost.
Unfortunately, there is no appetite from TfL to seriously enforce against touting or illegally plying for hire. Once convictions statistics start mounting up, everyone would be able to see the scale of the problem. TfL prefer to stay low key on this.
Complaints are misplaced, no arrests=No problem
FOI requests return same answer, "we don't keep statistics on these issues"
The police see this as a low priority and in some cases, actually facilitate touting. Same with councils.
Let's hope that now we finally have a first conviction, that we can now go forward from here on.