Taxi Driver Online

Not particularly interesting, but haven't read a PFH article for a while


Illegal taxi drivers fined more than £1,000 in Telford

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/loc ... n-telford/

Two taxi drivers have been fined more than £1,000 each after pleading guilty to plying for hire and having no insurance in Telford.

Telford & Wrekin Council prosecuted the two private hire drivers at Telford Magistrates Court last week after, they were caught illegally plying for hire during an operation by the council's enforcement team.

Plying for hire means the drivers picked up passengers who had not pre-booked with a taxi operator, which means their insurance was invalid.

Both taxi drivers were licensed by another council but illegally picked up the fares in Telford and Wrekin.

The drivers were told to pay £1,135 each, had their taxi licence suspended and had six penalty points added to their driving licence.

A spokesperson for Telford & Wrekin Council said: "The case shows we are continuing to crack down on taxi drivers who break the law and put passengers at risk."

That's obviously a council news release rehash, but can't find the original.

However, spot the clanger in this rehash in another news outlet (and I don't mean the t-word).

Sussex will get it easily, but others may have to read it more closely...


https://www.shropshirelive.com/news/202 ... lty-pleas/

Wonder which council that would be?

Obviously we can't tell for sure, but I'm sure most would put money on one particular council if they had to bet on it...

How many times do we read about councils not being able to take enforcement action against non-local cars?

Delighted that this council does.

_________________
IDFIMH

I'm certain as certain can be that it was the 'I don't give a f*** about anything bar your license fee money' Wolverhampton Council.

_________________
IDFIMH

Of course, the clanger here was that you're first prosecuted then you're either tried or plead guilty, while the above makes it sound like it's the other way round

To be fair, though, although it's maybe partly the fault of the news outlet, I eventually found the official Telford & Wrekin Council stuff on which the press article were based - a post on Facebook

And which has the same clanger, although it reads here slightly more like clumsy English rather than a procedural misunderstanding


Which sounds slightly more plausible in the procedural sense, especially if the word 'after' is replaced with 'as', say:

Another slight clanger in the first news article above is possibly in the headline:

Illegal taxi drivers fined more than £1,000 in Telford

In fact the council said this:


So I'd guess most of that was costs, and the actual fine was substantially smaller than that portrayed in the headline.

https://www.facebook.com/TelfordWrekin/ ... hoGwdcqKNl

What I still don't get about these prosecutions for "no insurance", how does "picking up passengers" nullify insurance? As soon as that particular act ceases, does the third party insurance magically come into force again? If not how does the errant driver legally drive away? Surely in such cases the vehicle would be impounded. But maybe it's like the food delivery drivers, not insured once the food for delivery is on board, can someone clarify this for me. Maybe the correct term is "not insured for the carriage of passengers for hire and reward unless previously booked".

When I was in the business my insurance covered me for public and private hire despite me only having a PH licence.

Short answer - yes, insurance is in place to the point a PH driver accepts an unbooked hire. It becomes valid again after the PH driver stops that hire. The insurer might/will refuse to cover a claim during that hire.

Similarly, I have motorcycle insurance which specifically excludes carrying a pillion passenger - if I carry a PP, I don't have proper cover while I do that, even if I have insurance.

Per StuartW, Telford proved (1) the fares were taken by an unbooked PH and therefore (2) can't have the proper insurance cover. Proving 2 depends on proving 1.

Separately, there could be a *licensing* offence for a PH driver plying in itself -

https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glas ... d-26682274

At a rough guess there's presumably a difference between routine checks like badges, signage and meter seals at the one end, and blatant criminality like plying for hire or more obviously police-related stuff at the other extreme...

But where the dividing line lies, I'm not sure...

I think you are right.

Maybe the difference is an offence where a non-licensed driver can also be charged, as opposed to the not wearing your badge or being rude to punters charges.

_________________
IDFIMH