Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Wed Aug 21, 2019 12:26 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Legal seats
PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 3881
rayggb wrote:
It's definitely not his opinion cos he is the main man ,the head of taxi licensing in Sheffield don't think he would just go on opinion.he said so long as I abide by all road traffic laws then there is no problem with carrying 7 (I'm 6) so long as it's SDP and I'm insured for such.


But at the end of the day unless there's a clear law on the subject that everyone can agree on, then his and our view can only be opinions.

It's like plying for hire - everyone will agree that a PHV can't ply for hire, but there's various opinions on what circumstances amount to plying for hire, and unless they're tested in a court of law then they can only be *opinions*.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legal seats
PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 8044
StuartW wrote:
MR T wrote:
LICENSED DRIVER - PRIVATE HIRE IS ALWAYS A PRIVATE HIRE.

Leeds City found a licensed private hire vehicle, which had been insured for hire and reward for use by the owner, and for social, domestic and pleasure use by other drivers, being driven by an unlicensed driver. The driver was prosecuted for acting as an unlicensed private hire driver and for driving whilst uninsured. It was put to the court that as he did not hold a private hire drivers licence that the insurance was invalid. It was argued that by virtue of the vehicle being licensed as a private hire vehicle it was always a private hire vehicle and could not be used for any other purpose, including social, domestic and pleasure, unless it was driven by a person who held the appropriate licence under the provisions of the 1976 Act. The Magistrates found Mr Mahmood guilty and he appealed to Leeds Crown Court, (1995), where the appeal was dismissed and the conviction stands for using a vehicle which was not adequately insured.

From the Book...


Interesting, but doesn't directly address the point in question. No one's disputing that a plated vehicle should be driven by a driver with a badge at all times - it's whether the same rules apply while driving it for SDP.


Stuart, what he is saying is that it is okay to have the extra seats, as long as he has got social and pleasure insurance, when he has to have hire and reward because it is a licenced vehicle, and the only way it is not a licenced vehicle is when the licence has expired or been surrendered.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legal seats
PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 43335
Location: 1066 Country
My view is that licensing law is quite clear on this issue, and insurance law is quite clear on this issue.

Thus driving with more passengers than the plate allows is a breach of licensing law. Be that domestic or business.

However if the insurance company allow for that then clearly a claim of being uninsured will fail. Be that for domestic only.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legal seats
PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 11:13 pm
Posts: 334
How can it be a breach of licensing law if the main licensing man says it's acceptable in Sheffield?.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legal seats
PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 8044
INSURANCE. In a reply from Norwich Union it was stated:- "Provided the driver has a valid driving licence issued by the D.V.L.A. we will provide cover under our policy even if they do not have the necessary Private Hire drivers licence". In a further reply from Motor Conference this was clarified by the following addition in respect of Private Hire vehicles which may be plying for hire; "This does of course assume that the use to which the vehicle is being put is one which is permitted under the terms of the policy, the same considerations will apply in respect of Hackney Carriages/drivers". This would quite clearly mean that the insurance operative at the time should cover Public Hire, or Plying for Hire, for the insurers to give cover albeit that the driver or vehicle may not be licensed as such, and the offence will then be of an unlicensed, (by the District for the purpose of use as a Private Hire or Hackney Carriage), driver and or vehicle. . The Dragoon Group were asked, in November 1994, 'What cover would an insurance company give with regard to any claim if the number of passengers exceeded the number for which the vehicle was licensed', they answered, 'The number on the licence is the number of passengers for which the vehicle is insured, however under the Road Traffic Act,1988, they would cover the third party claims, albeit they may sue the owner for the return of that cost'. When asked if age or size of passenger made any difference to this the answer was a definite 'NO'. (See also insurance elsewhere).

In 1995 insurance certificates were issued reading 'The insurance covers use of the above vehicle for social, domestic and pleasure purposes and in connection with the proposers’ business as a FULL TIME PRIVATE HIRE OPERATOR' These being issued to drivers who were not operators as defined in Section 80 and thereforeee refused as correct insurance by many authorities.

The Book 13th Edition © NALEO 2004- ISBN.0.9520635.0.6
1
Brian Denby’s
“The Book”

13th Edition


The Guide to Taxi & Private Hire matters, legislation, practice and caselaw

© NALEO 2004

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legal seats
PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:56 pm
Posts: 1729
Sussex wrote:
My view is that licensing law is quite clear on this issue, and insurance law is quite clear on this issue.

Thus driving with more passengers than the plate allows is a breach of licensing law. Be that domestic or business.

However if the insurance company allow for that then clearly a claim of being uninsured will fail. Be that for domestic only.



Exact wording from my insurance certificate.

LIMITATIONS AS TO USE:
Use for the business of the Policyholder as a Public Hire License Holder in accordance with local licensing authority requirements including the Carriage of Passengers for Hire and Reward.
Including Social Domestic and Pleasure purposes.

This means I have to abide by the number of passengers I am licensed for and if I carry a greater number I am not insured.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legal seats
PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 43335
Location: 1066 Country
rayggb wrote:
How can it be a breach of licensing law if the main licensing man says it's acceptable in Sheffield?.

Same way in court you have two highly qualified solicitors and every time one of them loses/gets it wrong.

But it is a breach of licensing law.

Nowhere in any act, or in any judgement, does it say licensing laws only apply when you are working.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legal seats
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 3881
Sussex wrote:
rayggb wrote:
How can it be a breach of licensing law if the main licensing man says it's acceptable in Sheffield?.

Same way in court you have two highly qualified solicitors and every time one of them loses/gets it wrong.

But it is a breach of licensing law.

Nowhere in any act, or in any judgement, does it say licensing laws only apply when you are working.


On the other hand, suspect it's a grey area, the type of which the legislators didn't envisage when they drew up the legislation. Nowhere does it explicitly state that use as a private car should be regarded as identical to use with a view to profit.

And haven't seen anything in this thread which directly addresses the question, and presumably there's no case law either.

The insurance companies treat SDP as conceptually different from commercial use. And several LAs obviously regard the two scenarios as different with regard to licensing law, as the use of CCTV and Ray's seats demonstrate.

And, for example, the law on the carriage of wheelchairs and assistance dogs says that it applies regarding when a taxi is 'hired', or a PHV 'booking' accepted by an operator.

So would SDP use amount to a taxi being 'hired'. Might the legislators here have worded this so as to exclude the use of licensed vehicles on SDP? And the PHV aspect begs an interesting question - if you use your PHV for SDP use, are you acting illegally unless it's booked through an operator? :shock:

So unless these things have been definitively decided in a court of law, I would say that at the moment they're nothing more than *opinions* on the law.

Therefore I propose a crowdfunder with a view to raising a judicial review to get some sort of more concrete answer.

Suspect it would raise at least tuppence-ha'penny [-(


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legal seats
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 43335
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
On the other hand, suspect it's a grey area, the type of which the legislators didn't envisage when they drew up the legislation.

See I think they did, and even if they didn't courts since have.

The courts have said time and time again a taxi is always a taxi, it is never a private car.

If the taxi says you can only have 6 passengers, then it that's the limit. It is never a private car that can take 7.

We have loads of contentious issues on TDO, but to me this is quite clear cut.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legal seats
PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 3881
Sussex wrote:
The courts have said time and time again a taxi is always a taxi, it is never a private car.


But isn't that regarding who *drives* a licensed vehicle?

Have other issues (such as a dress code) been directly addressed?

Find it difficult to think that a judge would conclude that a dress code applied to SDP use, and doubt if many councils would actively enforce it in that regard either [-(


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legal seats
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 10:45 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 17784
At the end of the day, this chap is only going to listed to the person he wants to listen to. he is not going to listen to anyone else. Also remember if there is a problem the person who is going to take him to court is the person who says it is OK. Therefore there is not really anything else to add.

_________________
Grandad,
old fart with no heart


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legal seats
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 43335
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
But isn't that regarding who *drives* a licensed vehicle?

Not sure that matters either.

It’s because a taxi is always a taxi that the driver issue comes into play.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legal seats
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 43335
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
Find it difficult to think that a judge would conclude that a dress code applied to SDP use, and doubt if many councils would actively enforce it in that regard either [-(

But the dress code would relate to drivers conditions not vehicle conditions .

I think it’s quite possible for a driver to not adhere to his licensing conditions ( i.e. not wearing his badge) on the basis of driving the vehicle whilst not working, but a taxi is always a taxi and thus vehicle conditions apply at all times.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legal seats
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 9:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 11:13 pm
Posts: 334
Yes my taxi is always a taxi but,it can be used by me(licensed and insured )for SDP. Is it more that the 4 seater saloon hacks can't get their head round it?.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Legal seats
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 10:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 3881
Sussex wrote:
But the dress code would relate to drivers conditions not vehicle conditions .

I think it’s quite possible for a driver to not adhere to his licensing conditions ( i.e. not wearing his badge) on the basis of driving the vehicle whilst not working, but a taxi is always a taxi and thus vehicle conditions apply at all times.


So a taxi is always a taxi, but a taxi driver isn't always a taxi driver?

Slightly inconsistent argument there - if a taxi is always a taxi and thus the vehicle conditions apply and it always has to be driven by a taxi driver, then it surely follows that the driver will have to adhere to whatever rules apply?

Anyway, looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree, but just wait till I get back to that thread about HCs working with PH ops :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group