executive hire

bigyin · **Posted:** Sat Jun 03, 2006 2:05 pm

Hi there as things seem to be slowing down in the trade just now i was wondering if anyone out there round about glasgow way would like to do some wedding work and has a luxury car. At the moment i have got one rolls royce but i need a couple of good backup vehicles also. I will advertise this when i get other cars and also get a website running so if your available drop me an email cheers.

Sussex · **Posted:** Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:14 pm

Why not ask the lads on http://talkinglimos.co.uk/talkinglimos/index.php

I've found them a far more friendlier bunch than some on here. :shock:

TDO · **Posted:** Sat Jun 03, 2006 6:50 pm

You're surely not suggesting that there's some unfriendliness on here? :shock:

JD · **Joined:** Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm **Posts:** 10381

Sussex wrote:

Why not ask the lads on http://talkinglimos.co.uk/talkinglimos/index.php

I've found them a far more friendlier bunch than some on here. :shock:

Just had a look at the limo site, I think some of them are placing too much faith in section 75 of the LGMPA 1976. Perhaps you can remind them that it is against the law to take passengers for hire and reward without having the appropiate "licenses". They should be reminded that if they are prosecuted it will be for them to prove to the court that they are exempt under section 75 and not for the prosecutuion to prove they weren't.

Regards

JD

Sussex · **Posted:** Sat Jun 03, 2006 9:32 pm

JD wrote:

Just had a look at the limo site, I think some of them are placing too much faith in section 75 of the LGMPA 1976. Perhaps you can remind them that it is against the law to take passengers for hire and reward without having the appropiate "licenses". They should be reminded that if they are prosecuted it will be for them to prove to the court that they are exempt under section 75 and not for the prosecutuion to prove they weren't.

I would JD but they then would be unfriendly to me. :wink:

GBC · **Posted:** Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:09 am

TDO wrote:

You're surely not suggesting that there's some unfriendliness on here? :shock:

Only those that resort to abuse at the drop of a hat.

The 'who are you looking at' people you always seem to get in the scruffy pubs.

Violence is the way forward, etc etc. :-k

TDO · **Posted:** Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:09 am

JD wrote:

Just had a look at the limo site, I think some of them are placing too much faith in section 75 of the LGMPA 1976. Perhaps you can remind them that it is against the law to take passengers for hire and reward without having the appropiate "licenses". They should be reminded that if they are prosecuted it will be for them to prove to the court that they are exempt under section 75 and not for the prosecutuion to prove they weren't.

But since some LAs don't have a licensing regime in place to accomodate them and/or effectively turn a blind eye then presumably a prosecution is unlikely?

captain cab · **Posted:** Sun Jun 04, 2006 6:33 am

But wedding work is a section 75 exemption aint it?

And if the punters hiring the 'luxury vehicle' have a 7 day contract then they are exempt too aint they?

Although, I must state I tend to agree with JD's sentiments.

Captain Cab

JD · **Joined:** Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm **Posts:** 10381

TDO wrote:

JD wrote:

Just had a look at the limo site, I think some of them are placing too much faith in section 75 of the LGMPA 1976. Perhaps you can remind them that it is against the law to take passengers for hire and reward without having the appropiate "licenses". They should be reminded that if they are prosecuted it will be for them to prove to the court that they are exempt under section 75 and not for the prosecutuion to prove they weren't.

But since some LAs don't have a licensing regime in place to accomodate them and/or effectively turn a blind eye then presumably a prosecution is unlikely?

Yes I agree entirely. The reason why councils turn a blind eye in the majority of areas is precisely because they do not have a special licensing category for these vehicles?

In respect of a business such as the one pink ladies now run, I would just like to say that the law would require Pink ladies to prove they were exempt under section 75 and that the Judges would look at the mischief in the 1976 act and not what might or might not be contained in an inventive contract drawn up by Pink ladies.

Regards

JD

Renfrewshire Driver · **Posted:** Sun Jun 04, 2006 8:34 am

Shouldn't have any enforcement problems in the Glasgow area !

http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/vie ... highlight=

http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/vie ... highlight=

TDO · **Posted:** Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:49 pm

captain cab wrote:

But wedding work is a section 75 exemption aint it?

And if the punters hiring the 'luxury vehicle' have a 7 day contract then they are exempt too aint they?

Yes, but in practical terms most limos are unlikely to be doing only wedding work or operate under 7 day contracts.

Some eight or less-seat limos are apparently registered under VOSA, but JD says this would mean having a registered route and timetable, which would also be impractical, so I'm not sure how this works either.

JD · **Joined:** Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm **Posts:** 10381

TDO wrote:

captain cab wrote:

But wedding work is a section 75 exemption aint it?

And if the punters hiring the 'luxury vehicle' have a 7 day contract then they are exempt too aint they?

Yes, but in practical terms most limos are unlikely to be doing only wedding work or operate under 7 day contracts.

Some eight or less-seat limos are apparently registered under VOSA, but JD says this would mean having a registered route and timetable, which would also be impractical, so I'm not sure how this works either.

Any contract which is sham and devised to circumvent section 75 of the LGMPA 1976 will be found out by the courts. Judges don't take contracts at face value they examine the nature of the business being carried out and if they think a contract bears no resemblance to the activity of the business then I have no need to explain what will happen. In short a contract of this kind means nothing, until such time it has been tested in the courts and as yet although we have case law appertaining to section 75 and it might be worth noting that none of it has gone in favour of the accused, we still haven't had a prosecution defended regarding a limo company or pink ladies? I'm sure it is just a matter of time?

Regards

JD

Renfrewshire Driver · **Posted:** Sun Jun 04, 2006 6:33 pm

TDO wrote:

captain cab wrote:

But wedding work is a section 75 exemption aint it?

And if the punters hiring the 'luxury vehicle' have a 7 day contract then they are exempt too aint they?

Yes, but in practical terms most limos are unlikely to be doing only wedding work or operate under 7 day contracts.

Some eight or less-seat limos are apparently registered under VOSA, but JD says this would mean having a registered route and timetable, which would also be impractical, so I'm not sure how this works either.

Of course the law in Scotland is slightly different with regards to exemptions, the contract period is a minimum of 24 hours

captain cab · **Posted:** Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:44 am

Quote:

Any contract which is sham and devised to circumvent section 75 of the LGMPA 1976 will be found out by the courts. Judges don't take contracts at face value they examine the nature of the business being carried out and if they think a contract bears no resemblance to the activity of the business then I have no need to explain what will happen. In short a contract of this kind means nothing, until such time it has been tested in the courts and as yet although we have case law appertaining to section 75 and it might be worth noting that none of it has gone in favour of the accused, we still haven't had a prosecution defended regarding a limo company or pink ladies? I'm sure it is just a matter of time?

But there is untested ground.

The Pitts decision was based on one vehicle doing a single 'contract', there is no mention of 'vehicles', what would happen if the contract named every vehicle in the 'Pink Ladies' fleet (or executive hire fleet) ?

The judge mentioned another vehicle (spare vehicle) being used in 'unforeseen circumstances' which is ambiguous.

Captain Cab

Taxi Driver Online

executive hire

Who is online