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

Nottingham case?
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27785		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  wannabeeahack [ Fri Oct 09, 2015 10:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Nottingham case?
Anyone hear of a Nottingham hack prosecuted for charging more than meter fare and having insurance invalidate due to breaking a byelaw?

is that likely?
Author:  captain cab [ Fri Oct 09, 2015 10:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nottingham case?
wannabeeahack wrote:
Anyone hear of a Nottingham hack prosecuted for charging more than meter fare and having insurance invalidate due to breaking a byelaw?

is that likely?


Aint heard of that one tbh
Author:  wannabeeahack [ Fri Oct 09, 2015 10:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nottingham case?
A taxi driver has been prosecuted after overcharging a customer.
Seydi Vakas Colak was ordered to pay £845 after being found guilty of not using the meter in his cab, resulting in his passenger being charged too much.
The action also invalidated his vehicle insurance.
Wellingborough Council’s licensing team received a complaint in October last year that Mr Colak, a licensed hackney carriage driver, had taken a passenger from the rank in Orient Way to an address in the town without turning on the meter in his cab.
At the end of the short journey, Mr Colak told his passenger the fare was £3.50.
As this was more than they usually paid, the passenger asked for a receipt and then contacted the council.
An investigation by licensing officers showed that because the meter wasn’t used, the fare charged was in excess of the maximum allowed under the set tariff prescribed by the council.
It was determined that not using the meter was contrary to the byelaws for hackney carriages and also meant the vehicle insurance was not valid.

http://www.national-taxi-association.co.uk/?p=9299
Author:  x-ray [ Fri Oct 09, 2015 10:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nottingham case?
wannabeeahack wrote:
Anyone hear of a Nottingham hack prosecuted for charging more than meter fare and having insurance invalidate due to breaking a byelaw?

is that likely?


Your not thinking of the case from Northamptonshire discussed on here a few weeks ago are you ? ( he didn't use his meter at all and was prosecuted for no insurance )
Author:  captain cab [ Fri Oct 09, 2015 10:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nottingham case?
Oh This one from Northamptonshire not Nottingham? which was posted last month, you didn't comment on and we decided they were talking b*llocks on ? :wink:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=27550&p=335223&hilit=Colak#p335223
Author:  captain cab [ Fri Oct 09, 2015 10:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nottingham case?
not too sure about the insurance angle myself - the driver can charge whatever he wants below the rate - interesting point though
Author:  MR T [ Fri Oct 09, 2015 11:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nottingham case?
captain cab wrote:
Oh This one from Northamptonshire not Nottingham? which was posted last month, you didn't comment on and we decided they were talking b*llocks on ? :wink:

http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/vie ... ak#p335223

I think I did say...........The wording on the insurance is what makes the difference.....
Author:  wannabeeahack [ Sat Oct 10, 2015 9:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Nottingham case?
Only prosecute on the Insurance due to a BYE law, not a national law?
Author:  MR T [ Sat Oct 10, 2015 2:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nottingham case?
wannabeeahack wrote:
Only prosecute on the Insurance due to a BYE law, not a national law?

Some Insurance certificates state on them..that the insured is only insured as long as he complies with his licencing conditions..so a liverpool cab picking up in Sefton is uninsured....
Author:  wannabeeahack [ Sat Oct 10, 2015 6:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nottingham case?
MR T wrote:
wannabeeahack wrote:
Only prosecute on the Insurance due to a BYE law, not a national law?

Some Insurance certificates state on them..that the insured is only insured as long as he complies with his licencing conditions..so a liverpool cab picking up in Sefton is uninsured....



unless its pre-booked
Author:  MR T [ Sat Oct 10, 2015 7:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nottingham case?
wannabeeahack wrote:
MR T wrote:
wannabeeahack wrote:
Only prosecute on the Insurance due to a BYE law, not a national law?

Some Insurance certificates state on them..that the insured is only insured as long as he complies with his licencing conditions..so a liverpool cab picking up in Sefton is uninsured....



unless its pre-booked
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: #-o #-o #-o #-o You are hard work... #-o #-o #-o
Author:  wannabeeahack [ Sat Oct 10, 2015 9:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nottingham case?
YOU refer to Liverpool plate working full time in Sefton, but thats not what you said
Author:  MR T [ Sat Oct 10, 2015 11:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nottingham case?
wannabeeahack wrote:
YOU refer to Liverpool plate working full time in Sefton, but thats not what you said


When..
Author:  wannabeeahack [ Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nottingham case?
MR T wrote:
wannabeeahack wrote:
YOU refer to Liverpool plate working full time in Sefton, but thats not what you said


When..




Are you losing it?

Quite obviously a Liverpool plate can pickup in Sefton....but not work there 51% of the time

MR T wrote:
wannabeeahack wrote:
Only prosecute on the Insurance due to a BYE law, not a national law?

Some Insurance certificates state on them..that the insured is only insured as long as he complies with his licencing conditions..so a liverpool cab picking up in Sefton is uninsured....
Author:  MR T [ Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nottingham case?
Quote:
YOU refer to Liverpool plate working full time in Sefton, but thats not what you said


I never said full time....did I..
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/