Private Hire Advertising

cabbyman · **Posted:** Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:37 pm

Is it permissable for a private hire company to advertise on their website that they cover a borough which is outside the borough in which they have their operaters licence and in which neither their cars nor their drivers are licensed?

bloodnock · **Joined:** Thu May 03, 2007 8:15 pm **Posts:** 9170

cabbyman wrote:

Is it permissable for a private hire company to advertise on their website that they cover a borough which is outside the borough in which they have their operaters licence and in which neither their cars nor their drivers are licensed?

Why shouldnt it be......The whole of the UK is fair game providing the booking is taken through your office / home within your licensed area, Be it by Email, landline, Mobile or Fax..or even smoke signals...

If your in the phonebook you'll more than likely be advertising outside your area on the Internet anyway...

captain cab · **Posted:** Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:55 pm

cabbyman wrote:

Is it permissable for a private hire company to advertise on their website that they cover a borough which is outside the borough in which they have their operaters licence and in which neither their cars nor their drivers are licensed?

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4661&highlight=windsor

CC

cabbyman · **Posted:** Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:55 pm

Many thanks fellas.

That answers a question for my colleagues.

cabbyman · **Posted:** Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:15 pm

Another question:

Is it permissable for a Private Hire company to operate a freephone outside their licensed area?

captain cab · **Posted:** Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:28 pm

cabbyman wrote:

Another question:

Is it permissable for a Private Hire company to operate a freephone outside their licensed area?

your testing my court case knowledge today!

http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3808&highlight=murtagh

CC

Sussex · **Posted:** Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:14 pm

cabbyman wrote:

Is it permissable for a private hire company to advertise on their website that they cover a borough which is outside the borough in which they have their operaters licence and in which neither their cars nor their drivers are licensed?

Yes.

Sussex · **Posted:** Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:17 pm

cabbyman wrote:

Another question:

Is it permissable for a Private Hire company to operate a freephone outside their licensed area?

That's not such an easy one.

In my view if the freephone is a direct line, then yes, but if it goes through an exchange, then no.

cabbyman · **Posted:** Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:34 pm

Many, many thanks for that case report, CC.

As I read Murtagh v Bromsgrove, a PH company CANNOT operate a freephone in an area for which neither it nor the drivers are licensed. However, a 100% HC company could.

Have I interpreted that correctly?

captain cab · **Posted:** Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:40 pm

cabbyman wrote:

Many, many thanks for that case report, CC.

As I read Murtagh v Bromsgrove, a PH company CANNOT operate a freephone in an area for which neither it nor the drivers are licensed. However, a 100% HC company could.

Have I interpreted that correctly?

Yes you have. :wink:

CC

cabbyman · **Posted:** Mon Mar 22, 2010 8:43 pm

Cheers, CC.

grandad · **Joined:** Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm **Posts:** 20130

captain cab wrote:

cabbyman wrote:

Many, many thanks for that case report, CC.

As I read Murtagh v Bromsgrove, a PH company CANNOT operate a freephone in an area for which neither it nor the drivers are licensed. However, a 100% HC company could.

Have I interpreted that correctly?

Yes you have. :wink:

CC

You did better than me then. It all reads like another language to me. :oops:

Sussex · **Posted:** Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:46 pm

cabbyman wrote:

As I read Murtagh v Bromsgrove, a PH company CANNOT operate a freephone in an area for which neither it nor the drivers are licensed. However, a 100% HC company could.

Have I interpreted that correctly?

No.

In the Bromsgrove case they used Birmingham cars to fulfil the freephone bookings in Birmingham.

If they had used Bromsgrove cars to fulfil the bookings in Birmingham, then that would have been deemed legal.

The freephone situation is sort of irrelevant, all that matters is that the cars are licensed in the same council area as the booking office. :wink:

captain cab · **Posted:** Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:52 pm

Sussex wrote:

No.

In the Bromsgrove case they used Birmingham cars to fulfil the freephone bookings in Birmingham.

If they had used Bromsgrove cars to fulfil the bookings in Birmingham, then that would have been deemed legal.

The freephone situation is sort of irrelevant, all that matters is that the cars are licensed in the same council area as the booking office. :wink:

HELD: An Operator licensed in one district could not install dedicated freephones in another district without falling foul of S46 of the 1976 Act.

:shock:

CC

Sussex · **Posted:** Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:33 am

captain cab wrote:

HELD: An Operator licensed in one district could not install dedicated freephones in another district without falling foul of S46 of the 1976 Act.

Admittedly that's what the header says, but if you read the judgement it doesn't concur.

Taxi Driver Online

Private Hire Advertising

Who is online