Taxi Driver Online

The only contract that will satisfy section 75 B, is that which is explicitly stated in the act and that which has been well and truly established in the high court. What we have here in the Pink Ladies scenario is a solicitor who thinks he can circumvent the law by inventively producing a continuing contract of hire over a 12-month period with the hope that he isn't legally challenged. He is relying heavily on not being legally challenged.

I put it to him that Carlisle council would not sit idly by and let Pink Ladies run a private hire business without it being licensed? He said he was prepared to go to court if that be the case. I somehow doubt the Pink Lady franchise holders in Carlisle would welcome the prospect of a forty thousand-pound court bill.

The Solicitor in Question is relying on the Pitts case law where the court highlighted the 7-day continuos hire and the fact that the vehicle could be stationed at the premises of the contractor rather than the hirer.

Here's the passage,

For a defence under section 75 to be made out it must in my view be a contract for hire for a minimum period of seven days and it must relate to a particular identified vehicle. If it does so relate it does not appear to me that the defence under section 75 is defeated merely because the vehicle is not left in the possession or the control of the hirer for the whole of the period. I see no objection to the vehicle when not being used returning to the proprietor's premises. Nor do I see that section 75 requires the payment which is to be made, and which constitutes the vehicle as being a vehicle used for carrying passengers for hire or reward, to be a fixed fee. It is common in many parts of the vehicle hire business for vehicles to be hired on the basis that there shall be some fixed charge, but that in addition there should be charges related to either the mileage or the number of hours during which the vehicle is actually used. But it is imperative, if a defence under section 75 is to be made out, that the vehicle should be identified, and in such circumstances it would be a breach of contract for the proprietor to supply another vehicle.

Having said that, I ought perhaps to indicate that the contract might be one which in certain circumstances enables the proprietor to supply another vehicle if, for example, the designated vehicle suffered an accident or other mishap which rendered it impossible to supply it. In those circumstances different considerations might arise. The initial vehicle, as it seems to me, would fall within section 75, but whether the substitute vehicle would fall within section 75 would depend upon the balance of the period under the contract yet remaining. If it was for less than seven days then section 75 would not apply. If it were for more than seven days section 75 might apply, and that would depend in its turn on whether the substitute vehicle then became the contractual vehicle or whether it was intended that there should be a return to the original vehicle, in which case it might be clear that the substitute was not a vehicle which came within the provisions of section 75.

I don't think a court would look on the contract as being bone fide. Especially when they are supplying a driver with the vehicle, the fact that several contracts will be in existence at the same time, for the same vehicle and the fact that the vehicle has to be pre booked every time before it can be hired? I think they have been inventive but in my opinion they are doomed to fail.

Regards

JD

Contract law is an overriding factor in any hire and reward activity. When a Taxi driver undertakes a hire he has immediately entered into a contract with the hirer to take him from A to B for payment. What we have in the Pink Ladies scenario is that I believe the courts will disregard the fact that the pink ladies is run on a membership basis and they will treat each booked hire as a seperate contract and as such the court will find the activity illegal.

Thats it in a nutshell.

Regards

JD

Many thanks JD, I was always led to believe the seven day contract was exclusive to one particular vehicle and driver.

As you say its difficult to see how one vehicle can have an exclusive contract with several (if not more) club members.

Obviously the membership club will have some bearing, although I tend to agree with you, it will be disregarded due to the wider implications.

From what I can gather the Local authority will not sit and watch this occur.

Regards

Captain Cab

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

what if say.......... company A rents an exclusive hire of vehicle and driver to company B, surely then thier is nothing illegal as it is an exclusive hire from company A to company B.......what B does with the driver and car that is on exclusive contract is nothing to do with company A

So if the law is that easily circumvented then why do any of us bother?

Captain Cab

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

Captain cab wrote,

So if the law is that easily circumvented then why do any of us bother?





Exactly, but if we all thought this way and acted on it they would soon find another law to prevent us,so a no win situation in the end and i feel that like the majority here they wont go very far before they come to a sticky end

_________________
Legal and proud

Loads a love from BERTIE !!

But company A is therefore an operator, and they aren't exempt.

_________________
IDFIMH