Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Wed Apr 29, 2026 8:46 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
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

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 2:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
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.

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 3:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
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

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 5:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 20130
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.

_________________
Grandad,


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 6:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:47 pm
Posts: 20852
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 6:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
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

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 20130
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.

_________________
Grandad,


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:44 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57347
Location: 1066 Country
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: :roll:

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:45 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57347
Location: 1066 Country
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.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 20130
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. :wink:

_________________
Grandad,


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
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. :roll: :roll:


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

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 2:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
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

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 20130
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?

_________________
Grandad,


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
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

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 20130
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. :D

_________________
Grandad,


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 173 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group