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

yet again
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=24881		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  grandad [ Mon Aug 04, 2014 8:50 am ]
Post subject:  yet again
Under current legislation as we know it is not permitted for a private hire operator to sub contract a job to another private hire operator from another district.
Yet again on Saturday night my local lawbreaker did it again. I took some customers into town who were going on a hen night to Nottingham. i asked which company they were using to get to Nottingham. They told me who they rang to make the booking, note that I said rang. It just so happened that we had another drop off at the same pub at the time that these ladies were being collected in a Rutland plated private hire vehicle. now which operator has committed an offence? The operator in Melton who took the booking or the operator in Rutland who accepted the sub contracted booking?
Author:  wannabeeahack [ Mon Aug 04, 2014 12:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: yet again
dont let it get to you Pete, lifes too short
Author:  no tips [ Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: yet again
Under current legislation as we know it is not permitted for a private hire operator to sub contract a job to another private hire operator from another district.
This is another one of the stupid PH laws that need ditching, as long as it is another plated company and not a cowboy so what ?why should a boundry make any differnce.as long as the customer gets a licensed PH home is all that matters.
Author:  Sussex [ Mon Aug 04, 2014 11:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: yet again
no tips wrote:
Under current legislation as we know it is not permitted for a private hire operator to sub contract a job to another private hire operator from another district.
This is another one of the stupid PH laws that need ditching, as long as it is another plated company and not a cowboy so what ?why should a boundry make any differnce.as long as the customer gets a licensed PH home is all that matters.

It may or my not need ditching, however we don't have the right to opt in and out of current laws.
Author:  Blueknight [ Tue Aug 05, 2014 8:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: yet again
The operator in Melton who accepted the (original) booking commits the offence of "operating a vehicle as a private hire vehicle when the vehicle is not licensed as a private hire vehicle". The leading authority on this aspect of taxi law is the case of "Shanks -v- North Tyneside District Council" No: CO/1018/01 wherein the Judge said,
"There was before the magistrates a consequential question arising out of the primary question as to the extent to which the sub contracting of work was permissible. It seems to me, and I think it is agreed by both counsel, that the answer to the proper meaning of section 46(1)(e) effectively answers that question. It is clear that whenever any operator acts by making provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a private hire vehicle, he must use vehicles and drivers licensed by his licensing authority. He is perfectly entitled to do that by way of sub contract; but he cannot obtain the use of vehicles or drivers licensed by another authority in order to carry out the booking which he has as an operator made provision for by way of invitation or acceptance."
Author:  grandad [ Tue Aug 05, 2014 9:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: yet again
Blueknight wrote:
The operator in Melton who accepted the (original) booking commits the offence of "operating a vehicle as a private hire vehicle when the vehicle is not licensed as a private hire vehicle". The leading authority on this aspect of taxi law is the case of "Shanks -v- North Tyneside District Council" No: CO/1018/01 wherein the Judge said,
"There was before the magistrates a consequential question arising out of the primary question as to the extent to which the sub contracting of work was permissible. It seems to me, and I think it is agreed by both counsel, that the answer to the proper meaning of section 46(1)(e) effectively answers that question. It is clear that whenever any operator acts by making provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a private hire vehicle, he must use vehicles and drivers licensed by his licensing authority. He is perfectly entitled to do that by way of sub contract; but he cannot obtain the use of vehicles or drivers licensed by another authority in order to carry out the booking which he has as an operator made provision for by way of invitation or acceptance."

Ah but here is the next problem. The operating license is held in the name of a dead person so who will the council prosecute?
Author:  wannabeeahack [ Tue Aug 05, 2014 9:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: yet again
grandad wrote:
Blueknight wrote:
The operator in Melton who accepted the (original) booking commits the offence of "operating a vehicle as a private hire vehicle when the vehicle is not licensed as a private hire vehicle". The leading authority on this aspect of taxi law is the case of "Shanks -v- North Tyneside District Council" No: CO/1018/01 wherein the Judge said,
"There was before the magistrates a consequential question arising out of the primary question as to the extent to which the sub contracting of work was permissible. It seems to me, and I think it is agreed by both counsel, that the answer to the proper meaning of section 46(1)(e) effectively answers that question. It is clear that whenever any operator acts by making provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a private hire vehicle, he must use vehicles and drivers licensed by his licensing authority. He is perfectly entitled to do that by way of sub contract; but he cannot obtain the use of vehicles or drivers licensed by another authority in order to carry out the booking which he has as an operator made provision for by way of invitation or acceptance."

Ah but here is the next problem. The operating license is held in the name of a dead person so who will the council prosecute?


my mate had a business registered in his dogs name....
Author:  grandad [ Tue Aug 05, 2014 10:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: yet again
wannabeeahack wrote:
grandad wrote:
Blueknight wrote:
The operator in Melton who accepted the (original) booking commits the offence of "operating a vehicle as a private hire vehicle when the vehicle is not licensed as a private hire vehicle". The leading authority on this aspect of taxi law is the case of "Shanks -v- North Tyneside District Council" No: CO/1018/01 wherein the Judge said,
"There was before the magistrates a consequential question arising out of the primary question as to the extent to which the sub contracting of work was permissible. It seems to me, and I think it is agreed by both counsel, that the answer to the proper meaning of section 46(1)(e) effectively answers that question. It is clear that whenever any operator acts by making provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a private hire vehicle, he must use vehicles and drivers licensed by his licensing authority. He is perfectly entitled to do that by way of sub contract; but he cannot obtain the use of vehicles or drivers licensed by another authority in order to carry out the booking which he has as an operator made provision for by way of invitation or acceptance."

Ah but here is the next problem. The operating license is held in the name of a dead person so who will the council prosecute?


my mate had a business registered in his dogs name....

Did he also have a private hire operators license in the dogs name. :roll: :roll:
Author:  gusmac [ Tue Aug 05, 2014 2:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: yet again
grandad wrote:
Blueknight wrote:
The operator in Melton who accepted the (original) booking commits the offence of "operating a vehicle as a private hire vehicle when the vehicle is not licensed as a private hire vehicle". The leading authority on this aspect of taxi law is the case of "Shanks -v- North Tyneside District Council" No: CO/1018/01 wherein the Judge said,
"There was before the magistrates a consequential question arising out of the primary question as to the extent to which the sub contracting of work was permissible. It seems to me, and I think it is agreed by both counsel, that the answer to the proper meaning of section 46(1)(e) effectively answers that question. It is clear that whenever any operator acts by making provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a private hire vehicle, he must use vehicles and drivers licensed by his licensing authority. He is perfectly entitled to do that by way of sub contract; but he cannot obtain the use of vehicles or drivers licensed by another authority in order to carry out the booking which he has as an operator made provision for by way of invitation or acceptance."

Ah but here is the next problem. The operating license is held in the name of a dead person so who will the council prosecute?


Which licence holder is dead? Melton or Rutland?
Author:  grandad [ Tue Aug 05, 2014 2:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: yet again
gusmac wrote:
grandad wrote:
Blueknight wrote:
The operator in Melton who accepted the (original) booking commits the offence of "operating a vehicle as a private hire vehicle when the vehicle is not licensed as a private hire vehicle". The leading authority on this aspect of taxi law is the case of "Shanks -v- North Tyneside District Council" No: CO/1018/01 wherein the Judge said,
"There was before the magistrates a consequential question arising out of the primary question as to the extent to which the sub contracting of work was permissible. It seems to me, and I think it is agreed by both counsel, that the answer to the proper meaning of section 46(1)(e) effectively answers that question. It is clear that whenever any operator acts by making provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a private hire vehicle, he must use vehicles and drivers licensed by his licensing authority. He is perfectly entitled to do that by way of sub contract; but he cannot obtain the use of vehicles or drivers licensed by another authority in order to carry out the booking which he has as an operator made provision for by way of invitation or acceptance."

Ah but here is the next problem. The operating license is held in the name of a dead person so who will the council prosecute?


Which licence holder is dead? Melton or Rutland?

Melton. I am not sure whose name the Rutland license is under. It could be the same name. I will be checking. :wink:
Author:  wannabeeahack [ Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: yet again
grandad wrote:
Did he also have a private hire operators license in the dogs name. :roll: :roll:


well seeing as no ID is asked for, possibly yes
Author:  grandad [ Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: yet again
wannabeeahack wrote:
grandad wrote:
Did he also have a private hire operators license in the dogs name. :roll: :roll:


well seeing as no ID is asked for, possibly yes

You need a DBS or previously a CRB to hold an operators license.
Author:  wannabeeahack [ Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: yet again
grandad wrote:
wannabeeahack wrote:
grandad wrote:
Did he also have a private hire operators license in the dogs name. :roll: :roll:


well seeing as no ID is asked for, possibly yes

You need a DBS or previously a CRB to hold an operators license.


Not here
Author:  Blueknight [ Wed Aug 06, 2014 8:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: yet again
The person who accepted the booking in Melton (presumably that person not being dead at the time) would be guilty of "operating a private hire vehicle without a private hire operators licence" under section 46(1)(d) LG (MP) Act 1976. The operators licence in the deceased persons name is null and void.
Author:  wannabeeahack [ Wed Aug 06, 2014 9:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: yet again
In fact, a mate was with a big PH circuit near brum, the owner couldnt have driver badge due to his police record...so he now rents out 120 radios ate £130 a week...
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/