I am guessing any vehicle would have to be a PH, with a licenced PH driver?

Illegal and there is precedent, Swallow v.(cant remember).

Basically it's hire and/or reward.

Illegal and there is precedent, Swallow v.(cant remember).

Basically it's hire and/or reward.

Rout v. Swallow, in the legal database.

Basically a hotel using a member of staff to drive its own vehicle (unlicensed) to give guests free lifts.

Ruled that the hotel stood to gain from the service and as such was the reward element from hire and reward, and as such they needed a licenced vehicle and hire and reward insurance.

Rout-v-Swallow hotel was indeed the one which more or less defined Hire and Reward here. the Glockner Ambualnz case in Germany further defined it as being "for fiscal activity" which covered free lifts much as Rout.

Replacing a bus service with a free service has been challenged by Stagecoach and I think Darlington Borough Transport a few years back when buses were first deregulated and SC ran free buses a couple of minutes in front of the DBT buses.

The TC is unlikely to be interested, but certainly get on to the local licencing officer who is probably the same one who licences the pub! He should have put them right a lot earlier. Under 8 passenger seats=taxi/ph, over 8 seats is PSV. the pub'sinsurance will be invalid too, carring passengers for hire and reward, even for free. (Pink Ladies case in the database on here).