Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 11:03 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2022 8:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:51 am
Posts: 49
As an extension of my on going "No Insurance" post and issue, it occurred to me that the licensing authority should have a duty of care to drivers also.
The authorities have a "duty of care" to the public, but does that mean as drivers we are not considered members of the public?

My interest comes from the fact that I have been charged by the police with driving a taxi with no insurance.
I did my due diligence, insurance was in place and i was a named driver as of November last year.
Add to this that I was driving a registered taxi that had passed its taxi test in March 22, surely I was okay to drive.
It turns out the policy was a domestic one, not hire and reward. I was merely allowed to see one page of the document which was sent electronically. I never saw the full policy, but never mind, Licensing have okayed it because they gave it a plate, no?

So what is the duty of the licensing authority in issuing a hackney plate?
The implications of getting it wrong surely imply a duty of care and at the very least, checking and verifying the gnikcuF documents they were sent

Your thought please, I sense another case brewing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2022 9:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:47 pm
Posts: 19115
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
I think a question or two needs to be asked about how thoroughly they vet vehicle license applications because if it is insufficient then they are technically endangering the travelling public .

That would suggest they have failed to fulfil their duty of care to the public

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

Join the campaign to get April fools jokes banned for 364 days a year !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2022 7:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 53921
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
As an extension of my on going "No Insurance" post and issue, it occurred to me that the licensing authority should have a duty of care to drivers also.
The authorities have a "duty of care" to the public, but does that mean as drivers we are not considered members of the public?

I've always believed that councils have a 'duty of care' when it comes to setting fares, in that they should ensure the trade is viable for those working in it, and they should ensure as best they can that drivers are working in a safe environment.

Quite a task and most, if not all, councils fail to meet my view of their 'duty of care'. But councils control us, therefore they should protect us as best they can.

Quote:
So what is the duty of the licensing authority in issuing a hackney plate?

They have a legal duty to ensure the vehicle, and the driver for that matter, they license is 'fit and proper'.

Snide insurance doesn't meet that criteria.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2022 11:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:06 pm
Posts: 24116
Location: Twixt Heaven and Hell, but nearest Hell
Sussex wrote:
Quote:
As an extension of my on going "No Insurance" post and issue, it occurred to me that the licensing authority should have a duty of care to drivers also.
The authorities have a "duty of care" to the public, but does that mean as drivers we are not considered members of the public?

I've always believed that councils have a 'duty of care' when it comes to setting fares, in that they should ensure the trade is viable for those working in it, and they should ensure as best they can that drivers are working in a safe environment.

Quite a task and most, if not all, councils fail to meet my view of their 'duty of care'. But councils control us, therefore they should protect us as best they can.

Quote:
So what is the duty of the licensing authority in issuing a hackney plate?

They have a legal duty to ensure the vehicle, and the driver for that matter, they license is 'fit and proper'.

Snide insurance doesn't meet that criteria.


The LA cant be expected to check insurance policies daily, not even weekly or monthly

The villain here is the car OWNER/base surely, are they still trading? any plates not covered by H&R insurance should be removed by the LO, another reason why plates are fixed outside the vehicle, not hung in rear windows...

"fit and proper persons" dont fiddle insurance

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2022 4:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:06 pm
Posts: 24116
Location: Twixt Heaven and Hell, but nearest Hell
Im sure its a drivers responsibility to ensure he/she and the vehicle are safe and legal to be used/driven

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2022 3:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 11:17 pm
Posts: 2609
Have a look on Pepipoo for the amount of drivers done for having no insurance. It is in the first instance the driver's responsibility to ensure the insurance covers not only the driver but the things the car can be used for. If it is to be used for hire and reward, it os for the driver to inform his insurer that is what is required. Using it for pizza delivery? If it's not mentioned on the insurance policy then you're not covered.

The ONLY "get out of jail free" card is if en employer tells the driver to drive a vehicle then the driver can assume it is insured. If it is not and he is not aware of the fact then he is not guilty of an offence. Driving with no insurance is an absolute offence. Either you are insured or you're not. Simples.

My employer recently had a check-up on drivers who used their cars for going to and from work, those who used it at work whilst on company business, were they carrying other staff members while on company business. quite a few were not covered for commuting to and from work; very few could drive on company business and fewer still were insured for carrying other employees. I was a bit surprised to find that whilst I was covered for all those instances, my partner as a named driver was not. A quick call to my insurers quickly added her to all the work-related driving at no extra charge. It had been on the previous year's policy, but not the current one. Others who didn't have the right cover were told to get it sorted, get the right cover, then they could carry on using their cars for work purposes.

My employer in this case is a bus operator and is exercising its care of duty not only to its staff but other road users as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2022 5:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:51 am
Posts: 49
Update; Police have dropped the charge against me.

Now to war with the council, wish me luck !!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2022 7:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:06 pm
Posts: 24116
Location: Twixt Heaven and Hell, but nearest Hell
Sudbury wrote:
Update; Police have dropped the charge against me.

Now to war with the council, wish me luck !!!


were you POB when stopped?

i still would like to know if the base/operator is still in business, was it a PHV, did the LA cancel his PH ops licence, did you take this to the press?

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 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