Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:14 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 39096
Location: 1066 Country
A hackney carriage driver guilty of plying for hire outside of his licensing district cannot be found guilty of having no hire and reward insurance, if he has hire and reward insurance for his licensing area, as the insurance cover cannot be for one area only.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Adm ... /3597.html

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 36816
Location: Wayneistan
Sussex wrote:
A hackney carriage driver guilty of plying for hire outside of his licensing district cannot be found guilty of having no hire and reward insurance, if he has hire and reward insurance for his licensing area, as the insurance cover cannot be for one area only.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Adm ... /3597.html


a very strange decision imo

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 39096
Location: 1066 Country
captain cab wrote:
a very strange decision imo

My first thoughts.

However reading the judgement the judges have convinced me. :D

What they are saying is that most, if not all, hackney carriage insurances don't specify a zone for their cover. I think they said that would go against the Road Traffic Act they mentioned.

They also said that although a criminal act had taken place, that in itself doesn't void the insurance. In the same way a speeding driver doesn't void his insurance.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:48 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:56 pm
Posts: 970
Sussex wrote:
captain cab wrote:
a very strange decision imo

My first thoughts.

However reading the judgement the judges have convinced me. :D

What they are saying is that most, if not all, hackney carriage insurances don't specify a zone for their cover. I think they said that would go against the Road Traffic Act they mentioned.

They also said that although a criminal act had taken place, that in itself doesn't void the insurance. In the same way a speeding driver doesn't void his insurance.



Always been under the impression you do not just take as fact what is on the Certificate but also what is contained in the schedule.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 7734
Sussex wrote:
A hackney carriage driver guilty of plying for hire outside of his licensing district cannot be found guilty of having no hire and reward insurance, if he has hire and reward insurance for his licensing area, as the insurance cover cannot be for one area only.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Adm ... /3597.html




Unless his insurance specifies that he is not insured if he picks up outside his area...... it's all in the wording.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 39096
Location: 1066 Country
MR T wrote:
Sussex wrote:
A hackney carriage driver guilty of plying for hire outside of his licensing district cannot be found guilty of having no hire and reward insurance, if he has hire and reward insurance for his licensing area, as the insurance cover cannot be for one area only.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Adm ... /3597.html




Unless his insurance specifies that he is not insured if he picks up outside his area...... it's all in the wording.

I'm not sure the Road Traffic Act permits such clarification.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 36816
Location: Wayneistan
surely the mere indemnification for the passengers doesn't automatically mean the vehicle is insured?

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 7734
Sussex wrote:
MR T wrote:
Sussex wrote:
A hackney carriage driver guilty of plying for hire outside of his licensing district cannot be found guilty of having no hire and reward insurance, if he has hire and reward insurance for his licensing area, as the insurance cover cannot be for one area only.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Adm ... /3597.html




Unless his insurance specifies that he is not insured if he picks up outside his area...... it's all in the wording.

I'm not sure the Road Traffic Act permits such clarification.

I can Insure you..

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 7734
captain cab wrote:
surely the mere indemnification for the passengers doesn't automatically mean the vehicle is insured?

If my policy says I am insured then I am insured...if it says that I am not .. then I am not.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 39096
Location: 1066 Country
MR T wrote:
captain cab wrote:
surely the mere indemnification for the passengers doesn't automatically mean the vehicle is insured?

If my policy says I am insured then I am insured...if it says that I am not .. then I am not.

Take it up with their Lordships.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 7734
Sussex wrote:
MR T wrote:
captain cab wrote:
surely the mere indemnification for the passengers doesn't automatically mean the vehicle is insured?

If my policy says I am insured then I am insured...if it says that I am not .. then I am not.

Take it up with their Lordships.

Don't have to..

Mr Hussain, for the respondent, did not object to us considering this additional material. We were prepared to do so. Mr Hussain argued in written submissions, as he had done at the hearing, that the domestic legislation is clear' that it plainly invalidates area-based restrictions in insurance policies, of the type at issue in this case; that there was no reason to construe the legislation in the unnatural manner proposed by the appellant; and that the law was not thereby rendered deficient; it adequately punished those who ply for hire outside the geographical area of their licence, since by doing so they commit a criminal offence (to which his client had pleaded guilty) irrespective of the insurance position. We agree. We did not find in Mr Moss's added submissions any good reason to alter our reasoning or the conclusion to which it leads. The appeal is dismissed.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:15 am 
Online

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:56 pm
Posts: 970
MR T wrote:
Sussex wrote:
MR T wrote:
If my policy says I am insured then I am insured...if it says that I am not .. then I am not.

Take it up with their Lordships.

Don't have to..

Mr Hussain, for the respondent, did not object to us considering this additional material. We were prepared to do so. Mr Hussain argued in written submissions, as he had done at the hearing, that the domestic legislation is clear' that it plainly invalidates area-based restrictions in insurance policies, of the type at issue in this case; that there was no reason to construe the legislation in the unnatural manner proposed by the appellant; and that the law was not thereby rendered deficient; it adequately punished those who ply for hire outside the geographical area of their licence, since by doing so they commit a criminal offence (to which his client had pleaded guilty) irrespective of the insurance position. We agree. We did not find in Mr Moss's added submissions any good reason to alter our reasoning or the conclusion to which it leads. The appeal is dismissed.


This surely puts the cat amongst the pigeons with out of town hackney carriages,THEY ARE PLYING FOR HIRE when accepting work when in another district,by doing so have committed a criminal offence.
Councils must enforce the LAW and prosecute every out of town hackney carriage for plying for hire.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 11:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 7734
It amazes me that people don't understand about insurance. Once you are insured and have paid your premium you are insured for the lifetime of that policy. The law requires that hackney insurance covers hackneys for hire and reward which is what we insure for. If the law was to be interpreted that you are insured only in your area it would mean that every time you picked up a pre-booked fare from outside your area, you would not be insured, which is obviously ridiculous, so a hackney is always insured inside or outside his area. If he picks up outside his area he is committing an offence which his local council should prosecute him for, and the cost of that prosecution is down to them. As we know, the problem with prosecuting that offence is that nine times out of ten, councils do not succeed in obtaining a successful outcome due to the fact that the person being prosecuted usually claims that they were picking up a family member and so on. So yes, councils will have now taken a big step backwards, but what I find interesting is whether the drivers from the past who have been successfully prosecuted for no insurance, will try to seek recompense and have their records put straight, which will be a cost to councils and obviously that financial burden will then be placed on drivers licencing fees.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 11:17 pm
Posts: 2015
The judges have agreed with my thinking at last!

If you also look to EU law, that says that all vehicle insurance must cover the vehicle in ALL EU and EEA countries. It may not necessarily cover the car for the carriage of passengers for hire and reward outside the UK.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 39096
Location: 1066 Country
roythebus wrote:
The judges have agreed with my thinking at last!

I bet they are delighted with that. :D

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group