TX11 CAB wrote:
wannabeeahack wrote:
Quote:
(ii) A licensing authority may in the proper exercise of its discretion under the said section 37 refuse to grant a licence in respect of a hackney carriage that is not intended to be used to ply for hire within its area and/or is intended to be used (either entirely or predominantly) for private hire remotely from the area of that authority.
It would be fun watching just how they prove the holder never intended to operate in the licensing area, what they ACTUALLY did would be based on who wanted the vehicle...
Surely carrying the livery of a PH company in Brum would suggest that they were trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes, all I am saying is why would they want to do it. Could it be that for some reason Birmingham Licensing has refused them a license and that Shropshire Licensing saw a n opportunity to make a buck?
Anyone doing this kind of thing MUST be up to no good.
Not necessarily. At a recent meeting I attended with the LC on the proposed reforms, one of the points raised under universal licencing was that it would give the LA's the freedom to licence for operation all over the country. So for instance if the Shropshire licence is cheaper than the Brum licence, then that brings the element of competition into licencing as required under competition laws, and may make licencing cheaper for us, the end user.
Several hacks in my area are Ashford licenced because in a lot of ways their regime is easier than the Shepway one, and less onerous than the Maidstone one. Several firms have moved across the border from Maidstone to Ashford recently.
Login
Register
FAQ
