A Bradford Uber driver told a court that a stranger transferred £50,000 into his bank account after overhearing him discuss financial difficulties in a car park, a claim magistrates ultimately rejected as they upheld the removal of his taxi licence.
Amar Rangzab, 33, of Clayton Road, appeared before Bradford Magistrates’ Court on Friday 16 January, to appeal a decision by Bradford Council to revoke his licence.
Rangzab said the money had been intended to keep his car business afloat during the Covid pandemic but admitted it was instead gambled away.
The council revoked his licence after being informed that The Insolvency Service had charged Rangzab with two counts of fraud linked to a Covid-era bounce back loan. At the appeal hearing, Rangzab said he would be pleading not guilty to those charges and argued that he remained a fit and proper person to hold a taxi licence.
Magistrates disagreed and dismissed the appeal.
Representing the council, Waseem Raja outlined the background to the decision, telling the court the licence had been revoked because Rangzab had been charged with fraud after taking out a bounce back loan, later declaring bankruptcy and failing to repay it.
“These loans were provided to help businesses recover after the pandemic and were repayable in full,” Mr Raja said. “The money was not used for that purpose and was instead spent on gambling, leaving him unable to repay it.”
Mr Raja said Rangzab had told licensing officers the £50,000 came not from an official loan but from a person he did not know, whom he claimed to have met while talking in his car about his business.
According to the council, Rangzab said the stranger asked for his account number, sort code and name, and the money later appeared in his account.
The court also heard of a separate allegation in which Rangzab applied for a loan to buy a £3,000 watch and stated he owned a property that in fact belonged to his mother.
“In my submission, Mr Rangzab’s honesty falls below the standard required of a taxi driver,” Mr Raja told magistrates.
Steven Knighton, Compliance Manager for Licensing at Bradford Council, said Rangzab’s explanation had not matched the evidence.
“We were told it was a customer in the taxi who offered to help him out,” he said. “The story was that the customer asked for bank details and, miraculously, the next day £50,000 appeared in his account.”
Asked whether the council had been able to identify the alleged donor, Mr Knighton said it had not, adding that Rangzab provided no information that could assist in tracing the individual.
“We need to make sure people in positions of trust don’t abuse that position,” he said.
Cross-examining Mr Knighton, Rangzab denied giving that version of events and accused the interviewing officer of being “manipulative”. He told the court he no longer had a gambling addiction and said he intended to contest the fraud charges, which are expected to be heard in 2027.
Under oath, Rangzab gave his account of what happened.
“I was parked in a car park having tea when a gentleman in another car told me he could help,” he said. “He said he only needed my sort code, account number and address. I gave it to him and thought, ‘what’s the worst that could happen?’”
“A few days later, I was surprised to see £50,000 in my account. I didn’t realise it was a bounce back loan. That’s the story.”
When asked why he was not suspicious, Rangzab said: “If he’d asked for my long card number, I would have been a bit more suspicious.”
Mr Raja challenged the account, asking whether Rangzab seriously expected the court to believe a stranger would offer him such a sum. Rangzab replied: “That’s exactly what happened.”
He accepted the money had been gambled away and said incorrect information on the watch loan application had been an innocent mistake.
Magistrates were told Rangzab had driven taxis for 10 years, but Mr Raja noted he had received a warning letter about his conduct in 2018.
After deliberating, magistrates said Rangzab’s evidence was “inconsistent”, while the council’s case was “credible”.
The appeal was dismissed, his taxi licence remains revoked, and Rangzab was ordered to pay £420 in council costs.
