Taxi Driver Online :: View topic - No license needed if you take a pet

Lord Justice Thomas agreed with the magistrates on Wednesday. "The magistrates were entitled to find that the purpose was not the carriage of passengers but pets," he said.

Sussex wrote:

Lord Justice Thomas agreed with the magistrates on Wednesday. "The magistrates were entitled to find that the purpose was not the carriage of passengers but pets," he said.

See even a Lord gets it wrong. :sad:

I wonder how many iffy drivers will now try and use this as an excuse? :sad:

Sussex wrote:

Lord Justice Thomas agreed with the magistrates on Wednesday. "The magistrates were entitled to find that the purpose was not the carriage of passengers but pets," he said.

See even a Lord gets it wrong. :sad:

I wonder how many iffy drivers will now try and use this as an excuse? :sad:

It seems perfectly reasonable to me, he is offering a service of taking an animal from A to B for £6 and if a person wishes to accompany that animal, then they may do so for free, I know we sometimes call the customers animals but this is slightly different, so therefore in my opinion the decision is correct :wink:

Iv'e had a few dog's in my time, does that count?

Sussex even a lord, what else would you expect from that LOT, First requirment on your hands and knees in front of Queen Parasite.The ones to respect are the ones that decline like Jack Jones, Tony Benn etc.
ORGANISE EDUCATE AGITATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Author:	Sussex [ Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:54 pm ]
Post subject:	No license needed if you take a pet
Pet ambulance case 'disgraceful' A judge has condemned as "disgraceful" a decision by a West Sussex council to take a pensioner to the High Court over his pet ambulance. Derrick Spooner, 72, of Bewley Road, Angmering donated all the proceeds of the service he ran for other elderly people to charity. Worthing magistrates found him not guilty of any offence last year but Arun District Council appealed. Lord Justice Thomas said the £10,000 case should never have been brought. It was a "quite extraordinary way to spend public money", he told the council's barrister Kris Berlevy. "Here is your authority prosecuting a 72-year-old man who was helping other elderly people take their pets to the vet," he said. "To pursue it in this court is disgraceful." The court had heard Mr Spooner adapted his estate car to include a cage to hold animals after retiring in 1999 and registered the vehicle as an ambulance. The council prosecuted him, saying he should have obtained a private hire vehicle licence because the pets' owners occasionally accompanied them. He ran into trouble with the authority after distributing leaflets advertising the service, charging £6 a time to cover his costs and donating any profits to charity. Lord Justice Thomas agreed with the magistrates on Wednesday. "The magistrates were entitled to find that the purpose was not the carriage of passengers but pets," he said.

Author:	Sussex [ Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: No license needed if you take a pet
Sussex wrote: Lord Justice Thomas agreed with the magistrates on Wednesday. "The magistrates were entitled to find that the purpose was not the carriage of passengers but pets," he said. See even a Lord gets it wrong. I wonder how many iffy drivers will now try and use this as an excuse?

Author:	JD [ Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: No license needed if you take a pet
Sussex wrote: Sussex wrote: Lord Justice Thomas agreed with the magistrates on Wednesday. "The magistrates were entitled to find that the purpose was not the carriage of passengers but pets," he said. See even a Lord gets it wrong. I wonder how many iffy drivers will now try and use this as an excuse? I did a little write up about that earlier today for TT, interesting isn't it? Regards JD

Author:	GMB Branch secretary [ Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:15 pm ]
Post subject:
Sussex even a lord, what else would you expect from that LOT, First requirment on your hands and knees in front of Queen Parasite.The ones to respect are the ones that decline like Jack Jones, Tony Benn etc. ORGANISE EDUCATE AGITATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Author:	kermit2482 [ Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:40 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: No license needed if you take a pet
Sussex wrote: Sussex wrote: Lord Justice Thomas agreed with the magistrates on Wednesday. "The magistrates were entitled to find that the purpose was not the carriage of passengers but pets," he said. See even a Lord gets it wrong. I wonder how many iffy drivers will now try and use this as an excuse? I accept that if indeed lots of people jump on the bandwagon here it would be a disgrace and clearly ought to be sorted, however for this particular gent my heart goes out to him, if more people were like this the world would be a far better place.

Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

No license needed if you take a pet http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5412	Page 1 of 2

Author:	MR T [ Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:55 pm ]
Post subject:
It seems perfectly reasonable to me, he is offering a service of taking an animal from A to B for £6 and if a person wishes to accompany that animal, then they may do so for free, I know we sometimes call the customers animals but this is slightly different, so therefore in my opinion the decision is correct

Author:	skippy41 [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:28 am ]
Post subject:
I hope we haven't opened another loophole for the pink brigade they will call themselves the pink poodles next But good on the old chap

Author:	GBC [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:30 am ]
Post subject:
I was going to make a joke about South London Minicabs carrying animals, but I won't.

Author:	rambo [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:46 am ]
Post subject:
Iv'e had a few dog's in my time, does that count?

Author:	GA [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 2:01 am ]
Post subject:
If any vehicle is offered for hire and reward which involves human beings then the driver should be licensed to ensure he or she is fit and proper and the vehicle should be licensed to ensure that it is mechanically safe. There is also the issue of insurance. The persons age is of no consequence, the service they offer relates to hire and reward. I do not believe however that this case should have gone to court immediately, the council should have simply advised this gentleman that he would need to be licensed if he were to carry any person for hire and reward. Then if he had persisted the matter should have been decided in court and received the courts backing. Has section 75 been repealed or is it still being actioned? We have to be consistent in deciding what are the policies which define a private hire vehicle and driver because anything that deviates would be, and should be considered illegal. B. Lucky

Author:	GA [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 2:10 am ]
Post subject:
Derrick Spooner, 72, of Bewley Road, Angmering donated all the proceeds of the service he ran for other elderly people to charity. He ran into trouble with the authority after distributing leaflets advertising the service, charging £6 a time to cover his costs and donating any profits to charity. So which was it ............. all the proceeds or any profits. the service he ran for other elderly people after distributing leaflets advertising the service Again 2 different versions ................. was he doing it for his elderly mates or as a commercial venture to the public. I still think the courts saw an elderly man trying to help the community, and I have no doubt that was all he intended to do ..................... however by allowing him to continue could open the door to someone with different motives, and that person could also be elderly. B. Lucky

Author:	JD [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 2:17 am ]
Post subject:
MR T wrote: It seems perfectly reasonable to me, he is offering a service of taking an animal from A to B for £6 and if a person wishes to accompany that animal, then they may do so for free, I know we sometimes call the customers animals but this is slightly different, so therefore in my opinion the decision is correct We already know how much he charges for a ride to the vet but what's to stop him running around town from A - B with paying dog owners and their dog? Regards JD

Author:	MR T [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 2:31 am ]
Post subject:
There will always be a door to open or a loophole to find, and I would have thought that seeing most Taxi and private hire drivers do not like carrying dogs or animals his service would be welcome, and I would also like to think that at 72 I could find the door to open.

Author:	Stinky Pete [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 3:18 am ]
Post subject:
rambo wrote: Iv'e had a few dog's in my time, does that count? well there's always Brian the taxi driver http://www.metacafe.com/watch/213148/fa ... xi_driver/

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	jasbar [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 4:03 am ]
Post subject:
GMB Branch secretary wrote: Sussex even a lord, what else would you expect from that LOT, First requirment on your hands and knees in front of Queen Parasite.The ones to respect are the ones that decline like Jack Jones, Tony Benn etc. ORGANISE EDUCATE AGITATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, I too used to respect Tony benn. That was until I heard him refer to himself as belonging to the "political class". Can you believe this? he's binned the aristocracy. Claims to be one of the boys. Then elevates himself to something even worse than the aristocracy, a political class higher than us. That's the George Orwell gig. I kinda lost my faith in all politicians with this tosh. Oh, and he made his crass statement on the BBC's "Question Time". No excuse. You got it wrong again Terry?