Taxi Driver Online :: View topic - Karaoke 'taxi' should have had a license

This case is believed to be the first of its kind in Bolton and is likely to be the last because the exclusion law ends on January 28.

The court heard that complaints had been made to Bolton Council's licensing department about Jolley driving an unlicensed vehicle for private hire. They called him to a meeting in September, 2006, and council officers said they would investigate the matter further and get back to him.

He heard nothing more until another complaint was made in March, 2007, which brought the case to court. Jolley had previously held a hackney carriage licence, which expired in 2005.

Yesterday, presiding magistrate Jeremy Foster said: "The council was most unprofessional by not following up the 2006 meeting. "We have decided to impose a conditional discharge in view of the council's failure."

The next thing that needs sorting out are those minibus operators not licensed as private hire but who use their vehicles for immediate private hire. All this should have been sorted out long ago.

A new act is indeed needed and perhaps those people who are convinced that piecemeal tinkering around the edges of current legislation is the right approach might care to reconsider their position?

Regards

JD

JD wrote:

But the use of any vehicle with 9 or more passenger carrying seats comes within PSV legislation .............. and those with 8 or less comes under PH.

So, in conclusion, these minibus operators will either be PSV or PH operators ......................... and so the tinkering around the edges has sorted out the problem raised far quicker than the re-writing of the law.

Maybe there is another reason people want a new "cab act".

B. Lucky

Author:	Sussex [ Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:27 pm ]
Post subject:	Karaoke 'taxi' should have had a license
Karaoke taxi owner loses licence fight A MAGISTRATE has hit out at Bolton Council after it failed to follow up complaints which led to the conviction of a taxi driver. Clinton Jolley, of Manchester Road, Blackrod, was found guilty at Bolton Magistrates Court yesterday of driving his taxi van, which had a karaoke machine inside it, without a private hire licence. He was given a conditional discharge. Jolley drove a distinctive black Peugeot taxi van with eight seats. The karaoke machine was for passengers to use. Denying the licence offence, he claimed he was covered by an exclusion loophole in the law because he had a contract with the DeVere Whites Hotel in Horwich. The court heard that complaints had been made to Bolton Council's licensing department about Jolley driving an unlicensed vehicle for private hire. They called him to a meeting in September, 2006, and council officers said they would investigate the matter further and get back to him. He heard nothing more until another complaint was made in March, 2007, which brought the case to court. Jolley had previously held a hackney carriage licence, which expired in 2005. Yesterday, presiding magistrate Jeremy Foster said: "The council was most unprofessional by not following up the 2006 meeting. "We have decided to impose a conditional discharge in view of the council's failure." The maximum sentence could have been a £3,000 fine.He was told to pay £200 towards the prosecution's £1,500 costs. Jolley told the court he had a verbal contract with the hotel since it opened in 2001 but was unable to provide written proof. Sarah Gander, the hotel's general manager, said they used his services regularly but he did not have an exclusive contract. To succeed under the exclusion loophole, Jolley needed to have a written contract for a specific vehicle with a contract-ending date. This case is believed to be the first of its kind in Bolton and is likely to be the last because the exclusion law ends on January 28. After the trial, Jolley said: "I have lost my business now. If they had told me I needed a licence, I would have applied for one and this could have been prevented."

Author:	Sussex [ Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:28 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Karaoke 'taxi' should have had a license
Sussex wrote: This case is believed to be the first of its kind in Bolton and is likely to be the last because the exclusion law ends on January 28. Methinks the council should hang their heads in shame.

Author:	TDO [ Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:07 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Karaoke 'taxi' should have had a license
Sussex wrote: The court heard that complaints had been made to Bolton Council's licensing department about Jolley driving an unlicensed vehicle for private hire. They called him to a meeting in September, 2006, and council officers said they would investigate the matter further and get back to him. He heard nothing more until another complaint was made in March, 2007, which brought the case to court. Jolley had previously held a hackney carriage licence, which expired in 2005. Yesterday, presiding magistrate Jeremy Foster said: "The council was most unprofessional by not following up the 2006 meeting. "We have decided to impose a conditional discharge in view of the council's failure." Unfortunately this seems to be symtomatic of many LAs attitude towards difficult issues like contract hire exemptions and stretch limos - ignore it and hope it goes away

Author:	JD [ Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:20 pm ]
Post subject:
Why? When I reported on this meeting of minds exercise in 2007 it was apparent that this self appointed group wanted to give the Government the impression that without exception they represented the English and Welsh Taxi and Private hire trade, along with NAPHLEO the local licensing authority enforcement organisation. During my investigations into this collective group of non entities I decided to contact several organisations including the T&G and the GMB. The T&G informed me that they new nothing about these meetings Mr Terry Flanagan informed me that he also new nothing about these All this will be academic come this time next week but the person breaking the law new he was breaking the law because he had no such contract. It is up to him to show why he is exempt from the legislation and not the council. Like Dusty said no one in authority was prepared to enforce the law on these people and that encompasses everyone who had a stake in doing so. The next thing that needs sorting out are those minibus operators not licensed as private hire but who use their vehicles for immediate private hire. All this should have been sorted out long ago. A new act is indeed needed and perhaps those people who are convinced that piecemeal tinkering around the edges of current legislation is the right approach might care to reconsider their position? Regards JD

Author:	GA [ Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:35 am ]
Post subject:
JD wrote: The next thing that needs sorting out are those minibus operators not licensed as private hire but who use their vehicles for immediate private hire. All this should have been sorted out long ago. A new act is indeed needed and perhaps those people who are convinced that piecemeal tinkering around the edges of current legislation is the right approach might care to reconsider their position? Regards JD But the use of any vehicle with 9 or more passenger carrying seats comes within PSV legislation .............. and those with 8 or less comes under PH. So, in conclusion, these minibus operators will either be PSV or PH operators ......................... and so the tinkering around the edges has sorted out the problem raised far quicker than the re-writing of the law. Maybe there is another reason people want a new "cab act". B. Lucky

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

Karaoke 'taxi' should have had a license http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7739	Page 1 of 1

Author:	kermit2482 [ Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:11 pm ]
Post subject:

Author:	JD [ Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:45 am ]
Post subject:
GA wrote: JD wrote: The next thing that needs sorting out are those minibus operators not licensed as private hire but who use their vehicles for immediate private hire. All this should have been sorted out long ago. A new act is indeed needed and perhaps those people who are convinced that piecemeal tinkering around the edges of current legislation is the right approach might care to reconsider their position? Regards JD But the use of any vehicle with 9 or more passenger carrying seats comes within PSV legislation .............. and those with 8 or less comes under PH. So, in conclusion, these minibus operators will either be PSV or PH operators ......................... and so the tinkering around the edges has sorted out the problem raised far quicker than the re-writing of the law. Maybe there is another reason people want a new "cab act". B. Lucky Since when has a minibus operator been able to take an immediate private hire booking? And since when has a private hire operator been able to take an immediate private hire booking for a minibus? I think you are in the wrong job mate, perhaps you should apply for Traffic Commissioner? Regards JD

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