Taxi Driver Online :: View topic

The following has just come up locally, I would be grateful for any comments.

The LGMP (1976) says:

(1) Except as authorised by this Part of this Act

(a) no person being the proprietor of any vehicle, not being a hackney carriage or London cab in respect of which a vehicle licence is in force, shall use or permit the same to be used in a controlled district as a private hire vehicle without having for such a vehicle a current licence under section 48 of this Act;

Scenario: Bob drives for AAAAA cars, a Private Hire Company. Bob is self employed, and does not own the car. Charlie holds the operator’s license for AAAAA cars; the vehicle is leased, to David, a director of AAAAA cars.

Q: Who is the proprietor of the car???

I cant answer it!

Easy...

So if Bob has got to make
half of his and Charlie's take
it's obvious that David is a sponging fake
for feck's sake !!!
_____________________________________________________________

Author:	Doc G [ Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:13 am ]
Post subject:	genuine poser
The following has just come up locally, I would be grateful for any comments. The LGMP (1976) says: (1) Except as authorised by this Part of this Act (a) no person being the proprietor of any vehicle, not being a hackney carriage or London cab in respect of which a vehicle licence is in force, shall use or permit the same to be used in a controlled district as a private hire vehicle without having for such a vehicle a current licence under section 48 of this Act; Scenario: Bob drives for AAAAA cars, a Private Hire Company. Bob is self employed, and does not own the car. Charlie holds the operator’s license for AAAAA cars; the vehicle is leased, to David, a director of AAAAA cars. Q: Who is the proprietor of the car??? I cant answer it! _____________________________________________________________

Author:	cabbyman [ Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:24 am ]
Post subject:
Forgive me if I try to clarify title to the vehicle: Charlie is the 'company.' David is the 'company' and the owner/licencee of the vehicle. Bob is a licenced PH driver who 'works' for David. Is that about right? If so, the proprietor of the vehicle is David although similar conditions to those highlighted will probably apply to Bob's PH driver's licence.

Author:	MR T [ Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:51 am ]
Post subject:
The owner of the vehicle or the company that owns the vehicle is the proprietor.

Author:	tx_op [ Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:22 am ]
Post subject:	Re: genuine poser
Doc G wrote: The following has just come up locally, I would be grateful for any comments. The LGMP (1976) says: (1) Except as authorised by this Part of this Act (a) no person being the proprietor of any vehicle, not being a hackney carriage or London cab in respect of which a vehicle licence is in force, shall use or permit the same to be used in a controlled district as a private hire vehicle without having for such a vehicle a current licence under section 48 of this Act; Scenario: Bob drives for AAAAA cars, a Private Hire Company. Bob is self employed, and does not own the car. Charlie holds the operator’s license for AAAAA cars; the vehicle is leased, to David, a director of AAAAA cars. Q: Who is the proprietor of the car??? I cant answer it! Easy... So if Bob has got to make half of his and Charlie's take it's obvious that David is a sponging fake for feck's sake !!! _____________________________________________________________

Author:	Sussex [ Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:45 am ]
Post subject:	Re: genuine poser
Doc G wrote: Q: Who is the proprietor of the car??? As they all said above the proprietor is the owner of the vehicle.

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

genuine poser http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11616	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Doc G [ Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:25 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: Charlie is the 'company.' - not certain Quote: David is the 'company' and the owner/licensee of the vehicle. True - He has his name on the lease of the car, but although a director, he does not front the company, let’s say he has a quarter share of the company. Quote: Bob is a licensed PH driver who 'works' for David. - Correct Charlie, is also not the owner, he is another director, another dimension to add is “Fred”, the majority shareholder. Like you guys I am inclined to think it may be the person who’s name is on the lease of the car, but that presumably means that the “Big Boss”, is not culpable?

Author:	Fae Fife [ Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:54 pm ]
Post subject:
Doc G wrote: Like you guys I am inclined to think it may be the person who’s name is on the lease of the car, but that presumably means that the “Big Boss”, is not culpable? Can't really see what the problem is here - the proprietor of the vehicle for the purposes of having a licence for it seems quite clear cut. Whether the company as the holder of the operator's licence may bear some responsibility for the vehicles under its umbrella is a different issue - and a further issue still is to what extent individual shareholders of the company are culpable - but for the purposes of the section you quote the issue doesn't seem problematic.

Author:	Doc G [ Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:57 pm ]
Post subject:
Very obliged to you all for your comments, gentlemen

Author:	cabbyman [ Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:24 pm ]
Post subject:
Care to hint at why we've commented?

Author:	MR T [ Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:23 pm ]
Post subject:
cabbyman wrote: Care to hint at why we've commented? because we are all smart arses.... that think we know what we are talking about.

Author:	Doc G [ Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:52 am ]
Post subject:
Cabbyman said: Quote: Care to hint at why we've commented? A few local PHV caught plying (allegedly of course!) in test purchases by people organised by local Hack drivers. PHV drivers can’t be identified because of the Freedom of Information Act privacy, and the Council won’t give details. District judge said go for the proprietor then – so now the question is, who goes to court?? Simples!!!

Author:	tx_op [ Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:43 am ]
Post subject:
The Judge, the defence, the prosecution, any witnesses and anyone who wishes to sit in the public gallery !!!

Author:	cabbyman [ Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:20 am ]
Post subject:
But, didn't the 'passengers' either note the badge details of the driver, which must of course be on display at all times while on duty, or ask for his ID at the end of the journey? IMHO, that is the crucial piece of evidence if you are preparing a case. After all, with respect, it's not the vehicle or the proprietor that plies for hire, it's the driver.

Author:	Doc G [ Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:12 am ]
Post subject:
The “test purchasers” were all instructed to look and note down details on personal ID badges Guess what ? - Not one of them had a badge on display, either on them or inside the vehicles. Even if you were able to identify them by name you cannot get their address from the Council (FOI restrictions again). DVLA usually comes up blank as well, because the majority were working for a firm and did not own the vehicle they were driving. Makes you wonder when no insurance is a level 4 criminal activity, and all manage to hide.

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