Taxi Driver Online :: View topic - Big Show Limos guilty of operating unlicensed.

Kings Lynn Council are acting to cut out the illegal activity of unlicensed limos in their area. Apart from the usual license contraventions the limo company was also prosecuted for selling liquor without a license.

http://www.west-norfolk.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=23274

Regards

JD

JD wrote:

I'd be interested in the details of how they operated, which loophole they tried to use, if any.

I don't know this particular company but I would guess that they were trying to use the contract exemption without having the correct contract.

I'm only surprised they didn't get prosecuted for driving without insurance.

Interesting point that does limo insurance require the owner to have an operating license ? We have a number of limos operating round here all owned by the same bloke but as far as i am aware they are not licensed

edders23 wrote:

I would be amazed if they were licensed.

JD wrote:

I'm only surprised they didn't get prosecuted for driving without insurance.

I suspect they had insurance. Whether that insurance would pay out in the event of a claim is another issue. :roll:

Road Traffic act 1988.

Part III

Licensing of Drivers of Vehicles

Requirement to hold licence

87 Drivers of a motor vehicles to have driving licences

(1) It is an offence for a person to drive on a road a motor vehicle of any class [otherwise than in accordance with] a licence authorising him to drive a motor vehicle of that class.

(2) It is an offence for a person to cause or permit another person to drive on a road a motor vehicle of any class [otherwise than in accordance with a licence authorising that other person] to drive a motor vehicle of that class.
_______________________

One would assume that if the vehicle was being operating as an unlicensed private vehicle, which we know to be the case and the driver didn't have the appropriate private hire driver license then in my mind there is no doubt that the driver wasn't insured for the purpose of the use of the vehicle.

According to the law and section 2 above it also an offence to cause or permit another person to use a vehicle in such a way so perhpas the owner should have been prosecuted for aiding and abetting?

Regards

JD

Does this part of "THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT" refer to your drivers license or to the license issued by the LA to taxi and private hire drivers?

Does this act cover council licenses?

grandad wrote:

Does this part of "THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT" refer to your drivers license or to the license issued by the LA to taxi and private hire drivers?

Does this act cover council licenses?

In conjuction with committing any offence it would apply. It certainly covers offences relating to hire or reward in respect of all Taxi licensing legislation and indeed it is backed up with case law, which of course can be found on TDO, if you have the time to search?

I suggest you consult a solicitor if you require information on any other driver license matters.

Regards

JD

Author:	JD [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:46 pm ]
Post subject:	Big Show Limos guilty of operating unlicensed.
Kings Lynn Council are acting to cut out the illegal activity of unlicensed limos in their area. Apart from the usual license contraventions the limo company was also prosecuted for selling liquor without a license. http://www.west-norfolk.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=23274 Regards JD

Author:	gusmac [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 2:55 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Big Show Limos guilty of operating unlicensed.
JD wrote: Kings Lynn Council are acting to cut out the illegal activity of unlicensed limos in their area. Apart from the usual license contraventions the limo company was also prosecuted for selling liquor without a license. http://www.west-norfolk.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=23274 Regards JD I'd be interested in the details of how they operated, which loophole they tried to use, if any.

Author:	JD [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 3:22 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Big Show Limos guilty of operating unlicensed.
gusmac wrote: JD wrote: Kings Lynn Council are acting to cut out the illegal activity of unlicensed limos in their area. Apart from the usual license contraventions the limo company was also prosecuted for selling liquor without a license. http://www.west-norfolk.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=23274 Regards JD I'd be interested in the details of how they operated, which loophole they tried to use, if any. It would appear the 1976 act. I'm only surprised they didn't get prosecuted for driving without insurance. Regards JD

Author:	grandad [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 5:46 pm ]
Post subject:
I don't know this particular company but I would guess that they were trying to use the contract exemption without having the correct contract. If you operate in an area that will license limousines then you have got to be really stupid not to actually go that way. The contract exemption way of operating is, as far as I know, recomended only where your LA will not license. I don't know the legal ins and outs but this was the LA taking the company to court for no licenses. Would the insurance issue be one that they would deal with or would that one be down to the police? It could be that the insurance company agreed that they were covered. It would be good to have some more details.

Author:	edders23 [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 6:15 pm ]
Post subject:
Interesting point that does limo insurance require the owner to have an operating license ? We have a number of limos operating round here all owned by the same bloke but as far as i am aware they are not licensed

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

Big Show Limos guilty of operating unlicensed. http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6800	Page 1 of 2

Author:	JD [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 6:41 pm ]
Post subject:
grandad wrote: I don't know this particular company but I would guess that they were trying to use the contract exemption without having the correct contract. How about you showing us what a correct contract looks like? From what we can gather the activity is just the same but what makes one operation legal and the other illegal, is the wording in the contract? The bottom line is that anyone booking a two hour limo hire for a saturday night, ends up with a contract that lasts 7 days. Regards JD

Author:	grandad [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:13 pm ]
Post subject:
At the end of the day, the customer is not usually bothered how long the contract lasts as long as they get what they want. In the majority of cases the customer is not even bothered if the operator is breaking the law. if I had a pound for every time I have been asked to carry more than 8 passengers........... well you know what I am saying.

Author:	Sussex [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:44 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Big Show Limos guilty of operating unlicensed.
JD wrote: I'm only surprised they didn't get prosecuted for driving without insurance. I suspect they had insurance. Whether that insurance would pay out in the event of a claim is another issue.

Author:	Sussex [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:45 pm ]
Post subject:
edders23 wrote: Interesting point that does limo insurance require the owner to have an operating license ? We have a number of limos operating round here all owned by the same bloke but as far as i am aware they are not licensed I would be amazed if they were licensed.

Author:	grandad [ Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:30 am ]
Post subject:
Sussex wrote: edders23 wrote: Interesting point that does limo insurance require the owner to have an operating license ? We have a number of limos operating round here all owned by the same bloke but as far as i am aware they are not licensed I would be amazed if they were licensed. Considering that they were prosecuted for not having a license, you may be correct.

Author:	JD [ Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:45 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Big Show Limos guilty of operating unlicensed.
Sussex wrote: JD wrote: I'm only surprised they didn't get prosecuted for driving without insurance. I suspect they had insurance. Whether that insurance would pay out in the event of a claim is another issue. Yes but did the insurance, cover hire or reward for an unlicensed driver? Insurance polices are very specific and unless the vehicle was being operated under the exemption clauses in section 71 of the LGMPA 1976 then I doubt he would be covered. Regards JD

Author:	JD [ Sun Sep 02, 2007 2:47 pm ]
Post subject:
Road Traffic act 1988. Part III Licensing of Drivers of Vehicles Requirement to hold licence 87 Drivers of a motor vehicles to have driving licences (1) It is an offence for a person to drive on a road a motor vehicle of any class [otherwise than in accordance with] a licence authorising him to drive a motor vehicle of that class. (2) It is an offence for a person to cause or permit another person to drive on a road a motor vehicle of any class [otherwise than in accordance with a licence authorising that other person] to drive a motor vehicle of that class. _______________________ One would assume that if the vehicle was being operating as an unlicensed private vehicle, which we know to be the case and the driver didn't have the appropriate private hire driver license then in my mind there is no doubt that the driver wasn't insured for the purpose of the use of the vehicle. According to the law and section 2 above it also an offence to cause or permit another person to use a vehicle in such a way so perhpas the owner should have been prosecuted for aiding and abetting? Regards JD

Author:	grandad [ Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:04 pm ]
Post subject:
JD wrote: Road Traffic act 1988. Part III Licensing of Drivers of Vehicles Requirement to hold licence 87 Drivers of a motor vehicles to have driving licences (1) It is an offence for a person to drive on a road a motor vehicle of any class [otherwise than in accordance with] a licence authorising him to drive a motor vehicle of that class. (2) It is an offence for a person to cause or permit another person to drive on a road a motor vehicle of any class [otherwise than in accordance with a licence authorising that other person] to drive a motor vehicle of that class. _______________________ One would assume that if the vehicle was being operating as an unlicensed private vehicle, which we know to be the case and the driver didn't have the appropriate private hire driver license then in my mind there is no doubt that the driver wasn't insured for the purpose of the use of the vehicle. According to the law and section 2 above it also an offence to cause or permit another person to use a vehicle in such a way so perhpas the owner should have been prosecuted for aiding and abetting? Regards JD Does this part of "THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT" refer to your drivers license or to the license issued by the LA to taxi and private hire drivers? Does this act cover council licenses?

Author:	JD [ Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:15 pm ]
Post subject:
grandad wrote: Does this part of "THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT" refer to your drivers license or to the license issued by the LA to taxi and private hire drivers? Does this act cover council licenses? In conjuction with committing any offence it would apply. It certainly covers offences relating to hire or reward in respect of all Taxi licensing legislation and indeed it is backed up with case law, which of course can be found on TDO, if you have the time to search? I suggest you consult a solicitor if you require information on any other driver license matters. Regards JD

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

Author:	grandad [ Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:24 pm ]
Post subject:
JD wrote: grandad wrote: Does this part of "THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT" refer to your drivers license or to the license issued by the LA to taxi and private hire drivers? Does this act cover council licenses? In conjuction with committing any offence it would apply. It certainly covers offences relating to hire or reward in respect of all Taxi licensing legislation and indeed it is backed up with case law, which of course can be found on TDO, if you have the time to search? I suggest you consult a solicitor if you require information on any other driver license matters. Regards JD But I thought that you knew the answer to this. You are far cheaper than a solisitor.