Taxi Driver Online
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

Illegally plying for hire
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13481		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Stationtone [ Mon Feb 22, 2010 9:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Illegally plying for hire
The subject of private hire insurance is going to be discussed at a council meeting on thursday and i was wondering if you have any info that would make the council see that when a private hire driver illegally picks up he is not insured.

I have taken note of the case law that was posted last week but was hoping that someone had more info .
Author:  captain cab [ Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
Mumford v Hardy [1956] 1 All ER 337

RTA 1988 , S143


HELD: An offence will still be committed even if the insurance company accepts liability on a mistaken view of the law relating to that policy

CC
Author:  Stationtone [ Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
Once again you have coming up trumps thats the bit of info that nails it thanks :D
Author:  Sussex [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Illegally plying for hire
stationtone wrote:
The subject of private hire insurance is going to be discussed at a council meeting on thursday and i was wondering if you have any info that would make the council see that when a private hire driver illegally picks up he is not insured.

I have taken note of the case law that was posted last week but was hoping that someone had more info .

Maybe a letter from the The Insurance trade saying such things aren't covered, or maybe are.
Author:  Stationtone [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:36 am ]
Post subject: 
I have emails from some that confirm what i thought, ie tradex but Aviva are not willing to answer the question.After googling the case law that cc posted i found a book , The law of Motor insurance and i think it backs up the case law.Below is a link to the book.


The law of Motor insurance

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uJkw ... sig=TJBlgK
VjJdLpDxWJhmlWgqq6nHE&hl=en&ei=tPeCS46dMJGM0gSVqrWtBA&sa
=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ
6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Mumford%20v%20Hardy%20%5B1956%5D%201%20All%20ER%20337&f=false
Author:  captain cab [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:07 am ]
Post subject: 
So basically if the insurer is ignorant of the law and say they will cover the liability, this doesn't mean the law isn't broken.........I wonder if the insurance company would open themselves up to aiding and abbetting?

That being said, nearly every insurance policy I've seen mentions terms and conditions attached to the license.

CC
Author:  Stationtone [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
This is what the our procurator fiscal had to say

"if the insurer is still prepared to cover the driver not withstanding any infringement there clearly cannot be a prosecution for driving without insurance"

Do you think he would change his mind if we showed him the case law cc posted and the link to the book of insurance law :?

Also can you go to jail for annoying the fiscal :lol:
Author:  captain cab [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
stationtone wrote:
This is what the our procurator fiscal had to say

"if the insurer is still prepared to cover the driver not withstanding any infringement there clearly cannot be a prosecution for driving without insurance"

Do you think he would change his mind if we showed him the case law cc posted and the link to the book of insurance law :?

Also can you go to jail for annoying the fiscal :lol:


I am insured to drive a motor car........ my motor insurance may still cover me if I am drunk and kill a pedestrian........does this mean because I still have insurance there is no offence committed?

Lessen that......say I get caught speeding......I am still insured......does this mean i dont get a ticket?

CC

CC
Author:  grandad [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
captain cab wrote:
say I get caught speeding......I am still insured......does this mean i dont get a ticket?

CC


You may get a speeding ticket but you won't get done for no insurance.
Author:  Sussex [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
stationtone wrote:
This is what the our procurator fiscal had to say

"if the insurer is still prepared to cover the driver not withstanding any infringement there clearly cannot be a prosecution for driving without insurance"

Do you think he would change his mind if we showed him the case law cc posted and the link to the book of insurance law :?

I take the view that if someone insures someone then a court will struggle to convict for no insurance, even if only for third party liabilities.

In words I think your fiscal bloke is spot on, despite the clear inconvenience it causes you.

However the plying issue is still there.
Author:  captain cab [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sussex wrote:
stationtone wrote:
This is what the our procurator fiscal had to say

"if the insurer is still prepared to cover the driver not withstanding any infringement there clearly cannot be a prosecution for driving without insurance"

Do you think he would change his mind if we showed him the case law cc posted and the link to the book of insurance law :?

I take the view that if someone insures someone then a court will struggle to convict for no insurance, even if only for third party liabilities.

In words I think your fiscal bloke is spot on, despite the clear inconvenience it causes you.

However the plying issue is still there.


If thats the case then the judge in Mumford vs. Hardy was wrong?

I'm sorry but I think the PF is wrong.......and I think we know what PF stands for south of the border.

CC
Author:  Stationtone [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sussex wrote:
stationtone wrote:
This is what the our procurator fiscal had to say

"if the insurer is still prepared to cover the driver not withstanding any infringement there clearly cannot be a prosecution for driving without insurance"

Do you think he would change his mind if we showed him the case law cc posted and the link to the book of insurance law :?

I take the view that if someone insures someone then a court will struggle to convict for no insurance, even if only for third party liabilities.

In words I think your fiscal bloke is spot on, despite the clear inconvenience it causes you.

However the plying issue is still there.



On Tuesday the 18th of August, a Postman working out of the Woodford Green Delivery Office in Essex was using his private car on delivery. He was subsequently stopped in an Essex Police road safety spot check. Although he was an authorised user and believed he was covered the Police were not happy with his motor insurance cover and so they impounded his car. He got it back later that day for a combined fee of £350, including fine, towing and release fees. Plus he had to upgrade his motor insurance to include business use at a cost of a further £70 – (£420 in total) before the car was released by the Police.

The Postman also got 6 points put on his Drivers Licence.




Do you also think the fiscal was wrong in prosecuting the postman , There are enought cases of this type to prove that our fiscal is wrong.
Author:  Sussex [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
stationtone wrote:
Do you also think the fiscal was wrong in prosecuting the postman , There are enought cases of this type to prove that our fiscal is wrong.

I think in the scenario you mention the postman wasn't insured for business purposes, whereas PH are insured to take folks from A to B.

I think courts would want a letter from the insurer saying if they are covering the accused, if they say no, then a conviction for no insurance will follow, but if the insurers say yes, then it will be hard for a court to convict.

Clearly the insurers will have knowledge of case law, so they really should be the ones saying if a person is insured or not, based on case law.
Author:  captain cab [ Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sussex wrote:
Clearly the insurers will have knowledge of case law, so they really should be the ones saying if a person is insured or not, based on case law.


I will give you a an opportunity to look at that statement again and then after careful consideration, think.....naaaaaa they aint got a f*cking clue mate.

CC
Author:  Stationtone [ Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:25 am ]
Post subject: 
Sussex wrote:
stationtone wrote:
Do you also think the fiscal was wrong in prosecuting the postman , There are enought cases of this type to prove that our fiscal is wrong.

I think in the scenario you mention the postman wasn't insured for business purposes, whereas PH are insured to take folks from A to B.

I think courts would want a letter from the insurer saying if they are covering the accused, if they say no, then a conviction for no insurance will follow, but if the insurers say yes, then it will be hard for a court to convict.

Clearly the insurers will have knowledge of case law, so they really should be the ones saying if a person is insured or not, based on case law.



Insurance law 5-21 If the insureds use of the vehicle is not covered by the policy, a statement by the insures that they would be prepared to meet any claim brought by the insured in respect of potential liability to a third party, will not prevent the insured from being convicted

I think that is very clear.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/