I do indeed.
As they are both pronounced the same (except for the "Wells" bit) and everybody refers only to the "Tunbridge" part, I efficiently lead myself up the garden path.
| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Section 52 - Uses - Abuses http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=15194 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Chris the Fish [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Section 52 - Uses - Abuses |
Section 52: Immediate suspension and revocation of drivers' licences Section 52 affects taxi and private hire vehicle (PHV - minicab) drivers in England and Wales (outside London, and not in Plymouth). Taxi and PHV drivers must be licensed by the relevant local authority in order to carry out taxi or PHV work. Section 61 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 gives the licensing authority the power to suspend or revoke a taxi or PHV driver's licence, but, by virtue of section 77 of that Act, the driver may continue to drive a taxi or PHV (as the case may be) until the time period for appealing to the courts against the authority's decision has expired, or, if an appeal is lodged, until the appeal has been determined. This section amends sections 61 and 77 of the 1976 Act to provide licensing authorities with a power to suspend or revoke a taxi or PHV driver's licence with immediate effect in cases where it appears to them that the interests of public safety require such a course of action. If a driver's licence is suspended or revoked with immediate effect, the driver may no longer drive a taxi or PHV from the time when he is given notice of the suspension or revocation. |
|
| Author: | Chris the Fish [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
For myself - the first abuse is that it is not in Plymouth. Let me make my position very clear. This amendment is designed to protect the public, my passengers, why is my own manor exempted - because we have our own act. The amendment if it had been done correctly would have included the 1975 Plymouth act. |
|
| Author: | Chris the Fish [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Right, abuses of which I am aware. Ashfield - it was not designed to counter over-ranking. Tonbridge - Hackney drivers do not need Operators Licences - de facto they are their own operator. |
|
| Author: | Chris the Fish [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Correct use - Torbay. http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/news/ ... ticle.html |
|
| Author: | Chris the Fish [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I was dissapointed that the speakers at the NTA open day from both NALEO and IoL were oblivious to the Ashfield and Tonbridge situations. They obviously need an EOL (Enforcement Officer Online). |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
You mean Tunbridge....as in the Royal Borough of Tunbridge Wells. CC |
|
| Author: | Chris the Fish [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I do indeed. As they are both pronounced the same (except for the "Wells" bit) and everybody refers only to the "Tunbridge" part, I efficiently lead myself up the garden path.
|
|
| Author: | Nigel [ Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Chris the Fish wrote: Right, abuses of which I am aware.
Ashfield - it was not designed to counter over-ranking. Tonbridge - Hackney drivers do not need Operators Licences - de facto they are their own operator. It's because the dumb f u c k e r s in Ashfield are a law to themselves. |
|
| Author: | Chris the Fish [ Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
As stated here http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=15313 A correct use. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|