Taxi Driver Online :: View topic - Well iffy Brighton firm fined

and ordered to pay £6,700 costs

£2,400 fine for taxi company

A taxi company was fined a total of £2,400 and ordered to pay £6,700 costs after being found guilty of eight charges connected to operating unlicensed vehicles and drivers. Travelmasters, based in Woodingdean, Brighton, was found guilty by Brighton magistrates on Friday (February 1).

The conviction follows two test purchases carried out by officers from Brighton & Hove City Council. One of the charges came as a result of Operation Fantasia, a multi-agency operation, involving the police, Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA )and the council stopping limousines to ensure vehicles were correctly licensed and roadworthy and drivers held relevant licences in the interest of public safety.

The court was told that while Travelmasters is a licensed taxi operator, it was found on three occasions to be operating unlicensed vehicles with unlicensed drivers.

The company faced three charges of operating a vehicle as a private hire with no licence, three of permitting a vehicle to be used with an unlicensed driver, and two of failing to keep or produce records. Two of these incidents related to the hire of smaller limousines with up to 8 passengers, which are subject to the same private hire and public service vehicle licensing legislation as other private hire vehicles. Travelmasters was not represented in court.

These Brighton boys really are on the job but I wonder why an experienced operator would take a chance on running unlicensed limos?

but I wonder why an experienced operator would take a chance on running unlicensed limos?

GMB B&H drivers attack council, big-time.

Didn't they try the self drive scam?

I'm wondering what happened to this so called water tight limo contract everyone raves about? Why didn't it work?

I'm getting conflicting messages that suggest the company first tried to say it was operating under a 7 day contract exemption and then changed its mind and said it was operating under a PSV license. Obviously it wasn't operating under any license but having tried both sets of rules and found them wanting I'm wondering where unlicensed limos go from here?

Regards

JD

JD wrote:

As with any operating system you do actually have to operate the system correctly. If the company were claiming to operate under the 7 day contract exemption then they would have to produce the contract. If they were operating under VOSA again they would have to produce the documentation. Obviously they couldn't produce any documentation so therfore they were banged to rights and serves them right. I run my limousines under private hire, I would be stupid to think that I don't have to keep the necesary paperwork available for inspection.
When I was a member of the then NLA now the NLcA the advice was that if your LA would license then that is what you should do. The other options were advised only where the LA wouldn't license. This company claim to be members of the NLcA so I would be interested in their(the NLcA) view of this operator.

We have 2 limos in the Borders, and they are both plated PH.
JD you posed the question what if they cannot obtain a licence, If they where to go PH I was under the impression that councils could not refuse to licence them as long as they meet all the licencing requirements is this true??????

One vehicle, a £130k Stretch Hummer was seized as a result of a number of offences dealt with by both the police and VOSA.

Author:	Sussex [ Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:24 pm ]
Post subject:	Well iffy Brighton firm fined
£2,400 fine for taxi company A taxi company was fined a total of £2,400 and ordered to pay £6,700 costs after being found guilty of eight charges connected to operating unlicensed vehicles and drivers. Travelmasters, based in Woodingdean, Brighton, was found guilty by Brighton magistrates on Friday (February 1). The conviction follows two test purchases carried out by officers from Brighton & Hove City Council. One of the charges came as a result of Operation Fantasia, a multi-agency operation, involving the police, Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA )and the council stopping limousines to ensure vehicles were correctly licensed and roadworthy and drivers held relevant licences in the interest of public safety. The court was told that while Travelmasters is a licensed taxi operator, it was found on three occasions to be operating unlicensed vehicles with unlicensed drivers. The company faced three charges of operating a vehicle as a private hire with no licence, three of permitting a vehicle to be used with an unlicensed driver, and two of failing to keep or produce records. Two of these incidents related to the hire of smaller limousines with up to 8 passengers, which are subject to the same private hire and public service vehicle licensing legislation as other private hire vehicles. Travelmasters was not represented in court.

Author:	Sussex [ Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:25 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Well iffy Brighton firm fined
Sussex wrote: and ordered to pay £6,700 costs

Author:	JD [ Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:57 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Well iffy Brighton firm fined
Sussex wrote: £2,400 fine for taxi company A taxi company was fined a total of £2,400 and ordered to pay £6,700 costs after being found guilty of eight charges connected to operating unlicensed vehicles and drivers. Travelmasters, based in Woodingdean, Brighton, was found guilty by Brighton magistrates on Friday (February 1). The conviction follows two test purchases carried out by officers from Brighton & Hove City Council. One of the charges came as a result of Operation Fantasia, a multi-agency operation, involving the police, Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA )and the council stopping limousines to ensure vehicles were correctly licensed and roadworthy and drivers held relevant licences in the interest of public safety. The court was told that while Travelmasters is a licensed taxi operator, it was found on three occasions to be operating unlicensed vehicles with unlicensed drivers. The company faced three charges of operating a vehicle as a private hire with no licence, three of permitting a vehicle to be used with an unlicensed driver, and two of failing to keep or produce records. Two of these incidents related to the hire of smaller limousines with up to 8 passengers, which are subject to the same private hire and public service vehicle licensing legislation as other private hire vehicles. Travelmasters was not represented in court. These Brighton boys really are on the job but I wonder why an experienced operator would take a chance on running unlicensed limos? It's pretty straight forward to get limos licensed but obviously this outfit saw an advantage in doing things outside the law. Brighton went about it in the right way by conducting test purchases, no doubt the test purchases found out the flaws in these bogus contracts. Regards JD

Author:	no tips [ Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:47 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: These Brighton boys really are on the job but I wonder why an experienced operator would take a chance on running unlicensed limos? Its the limo culture, they are outside current legislation. or so they thought.

Author:	Sussex [ Mon Feb 04, 2008 11:05 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Well iffy Brighton firm fined
JD wrote: but I wonder why an experienced operator would take a chance on running unlicensed limos? Because he is a shyster.

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

Well iffy Brighton firm fined http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7870	Page 1 of 4

Author:	skippy41 [ Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:04 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: GMB B&H drivers attack council, big-time. Well BB had better look closer to home instead of worrying about Lewes he's not related to ELL TELL by any chance

Author:	JD [ Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:35 pm ]
Post subject:
I'm wondering what happened to this so called water tight limo contract everyone raves about? Why didn't it work? I'm getting conflicting messages that suggest the company first tried to say it was operating under a 7 day contract exemption and then changed its mind and said it was operating under a PSV license. Obviously it wasn't operating under any license but having tried both sets of rules and found them wanting I'm wondering where unlicensed limos go from here? Regards JD

Author:	gusmac [ Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:41 pm ]
Post subject:
Didn't they try the self drive scam?

Author:	Alex [ Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:49 pm ]
Post subject:
Press release sent to TDO from Sussex Police Issue Date: 1/2/2008 No: 22867 Title: LIMOUSINE COMPANY CONVICTED A limousine company has been convicted at Brighton Magistrates Court today, Friday 1st February, on eight counts connected to operating unlicensed vehicles and drivers. Travelmasters Limited failed two test purchases carried out by council officers and also failed an on-the-spot check in December 2006 carried out as part of Operation Fantasia, a multi-agency operation involving Brighton & Hove's Roads Policing Unit, VOSA (Vehicle and Operator Services Agency), Brighton and Hove Council Taxi Licensing Unit and officers from the Sussex Police Special Constabulary stopping limousines to ensure vehicles were correctly licensed and roadworthy and drivers held relevant licences in the interest of public safety. On 9th December 2006, the team stopped twenty one limousines, with nine being given prohibitions for numerous offences including being overweight, carrying invalid operator licences and driving licences, inaccurate tachographs, carrying excessive passengers and having faulty tyres, brakes and lights. Some were given immediate prohibitions, others with direction notices, and three were seized immediately. A number of endorsable and non endorsable tickets were also issued for a wide range of offences. One vehicle, a £130k Stretch Hummer was seized as a result of a number of offences dealt with by both the police and VOSA. A police spokeswoman said: "We have a responsibility to the public and other road users to educate the operators of limousines about the legality and serious safety issues surrounding the running of these vehicles. Everyone who visits Brighton & Hove should be able to have a safe and enjoyable evening and we would urge anyone booking a limousine for that extra special event to check the credentials of the company they are booking with and ensure that they comply with all regulations." More than 6,000 limousines are currently in the UK, the overwhelming majority of which are imported from the USA. As the use of limousines in the UK rises, particularly in cities like Brighton, Sussex Police are keen to ensure that the companies that operate these vehicles comply with safety and legal requirements at all times and will carry out more checks in the future. Details of sentencing are awaited.

Author:	Sussex [ Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:52 pm ]
Post subject:
gusmac wrote: Didn't they try the self drive scam? No they didn't, but in a way I wished they had, cos then a proper licensing authority, who know the score, could kill off that scam as well.

Author:	grandad [ Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:57 pm ]
Post subject:
JD wrote: I'm wondering what happened to this so called water tight limo contract everyone raves about? Why didn't it work? I'm getting conflicting messages that suggest the company first tried to say it was operating under a 7 day contract exemption and then changed its mind and said it was operating under a PSV license. Obviously it wasn't operating under any license but having tried both sets of rules and found them wanting I'm wondering where unlicensed limos go from here? Regards JD As with any operating system you do actually have to operate the system correctly. If the company were claiming to operate under the 7 day contract exemption then they would have to produce the contract. If they were operating under VOSA again they would have to produce the documentation. Obviously they couldn't produce any documentation so therfore they were banged to rights and serves them right. I run my limousines under private hire, I would be stupid to think that I don't have to keep the necesary paperwork available for inspection. When I was a member of the then NLA now the NLcA the advice was that if your LA would license then that is what you should do. The other options were advised only where the LA wouldn't license. This company claim to be members of the NLcA so I would be interested in their(the NLcA) view of this operator.

Author:	JD [ Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:17 pm ]
Post subject:
grandad wrote: JD wrote: I'm wondering what happened to this so called water tight limo contract everyone raves about? Why didn't it work? I'm getting conflicting messages that suggest the company first tried to say it was operating under a 7 day contract exemption and then changed its mind and said it was operating under a PSV license. Obviously it wasn't operating under any license but having tried both sets of rules and found them wanting I'm wondering where unlicensed limos go from here? Regards JD As with any operating system you do actually have to operate the system correctly. If the company were claiming to operate under the 7 day contract exemption then they would have to produce the contract. If they were operating under VOSA again they would have to produce the documentation. Obviously they couldn't produce any documentation so therfore they were banged to rights and serves them right. I run my limousines under private hire, I would be stupid to think that I don't have to keep the necesary paperwork available for inspection. When I was a member of the then NLA now the NLcA the advice was that if your LA would license then that is what you should do. The other options were advised only where the LA wouldn't license. This company claim to be members of the NLcA so I would be interested in their(the NLcA) view of this operator. Thank you for that input Grandad but when I spoke to the Sussex police today to find out the circumstances of how these prosecutions came about they seemed to be under the impression that there are more unlicensed limos running around than those that are licensed? TDO is the first to get that press release because we wanted the facts and not because we have anything against limos but because we prefer to get at the truth of the matter. My question in the previous post was, "where do unlicensed limos go from here" because it appears to both me and the police that there might still be a great many limos out there who are either not prepared to get licensed or are incapable of obtaining a license? Do you have an opinion on the number of limos that might fit into the permanent unlicensed category? Regards JD

Author:	skippy41 [ Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:25 pm ]
Post subject:
We have 2 limos in the Borders, and they are both plated PH. JD you posed the question what if they cannot obtain a licence, If they where to go PH I was under the impression that councils could not refuse to licence them as long as they meet all the licencing requirements is this true??????

Author:	Sussex [ Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:30 pm ]
Post subject:
skippy41 wrote: We have 2 limos in the Borders, and they are both plated PH. JD you posed the question what if they cannot obtain a licence, If they where to go PH I was under the impression that councils could not refuse to licence them as long as they meet all the licencing requirements is this true?????? I welcome all licensed limos in the same way I welcome all licensed taxi/PH vehicles. Why some aren't licensed is an interesting question. I would say a % just can't be bothered and the 'powers that be' turn a blind eye. A further % can't be licensed as they will never meet the 'fit and proper' criteria. Again in the past the 'powers that be' have decided a blind eye is a good eye. But things are changing, and the fact that Sussex Police have now got the hump means that unlicensed limos had best change to being licensed limos or expect a £9,000+ court bill.

Page 1 of 4	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Sussex [ Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:33 pm ]
Post subject:
Alex wrote: One vehicle, a £130k Stretch Hummer was seized as a result of a number of offences dealt with by both the police and VOSA. If that isn't evidence of complete and utter stupidity then you have to wonder what could be. Paying £130,000 and still getting it wrong.