Taxi Driver Online

Here is one of the latest cases in respect of plying for hire without insurance. I'm sure everyone is now well aware of the possible consequences in this respect. This goes for Hackney carraige drivers plying outside their licensed area and P/H vehicles plying in any area?
.......................................................

Telford and Wrekin Borough Council v Ahmed and others

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (DIVISIONAL COURT)

21 JUNE 2006

Motor insurance - Exception - Policies excluding use for plying for hire - Policies stating that nothing in certificate of insurance affecting right of third party to make claim - Evidence that insurers would consider selves on risk of claim under policies arising out of use for plying for hire - Whether defendants insured when plying for hire - Road Traffic Act, s 143.

Road Traffic Act 1988, s 143.

The defendants were all drivers of private hire vehicles. Each held policies of insurance that covered that use, but expressly excluded plying for hire as a hackney carriage. The policies also contained a footnote to the effect that nothing in the certificate of insurance affected the right of a third party to make a claim. They were charged with plying for hire as a hackney carriage without a licence, contrary to s 45 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, and driving without a policy of insurance that complied with Pt VI of the Road Traffic Act 1988, contrary to s 143 of the 1988 Act. The district judge heard evidence that, although the insurance policies in question did not cover plying for hire, insurers would none the less regard themselves as being on risk, and would look to the insured for repayment of any third party claim arising out of that use.

The one defendant that had not pleaded guilty to plying for hire without a licence was convicted of that offence. In relation to the charges of driving without insurance, the district judge was of the opinion that the mischief at which the provisions of the 1988 Act were directed did not arise in the instant case because the insurers were on risk. In those circumstances, and having regard to the footnote to the policies, he concluded that the defendants had been insured when they had been plying for hire. The defendants were acquitted of driving without insurance, and the prosecution appealed.

COUNSEL:
Peter Moss (instructed by Timothy Stedeford, Telford) for the prosecution.; Andrew Molloy (instructed by MFG, Telford, Clarkes, Telford, Wright McMillan & Bennett, Telford, and Patience, Clarke & Burrowes, Telford) for the defendants.

PANEL: LATHAM LJ AND MCCOMBE J

DISPOSITION:
The appeal would be allowed.

Applying settled principles, an offence was committed where the policy in question did not cover the relevant risk, even if an insurer might be willing to accept that it was at risk at the material time. The footnote in the policies did not affect the extent of the cover afforded by the policy, but demonstrated the arrangements that had been put in place between insurers and the Motorists' Insurance Bureau.

Whether the policy covered the risk was a matter of construction of that policy; it was not a matter for evidence.

It was clear on the face of the policies in the instant case that they did not cover plying for hire.

Accordingly, the matter would be remitted to the district judge with a direction to convict the defendants.

Carnill v Rowland [1953] 1 All ER 486 applied; Adams v Dunne [1978] RTR 281 distinguished.
.................................................