x-ray wrote:
StuartW wrote:
X-ray wrote:
although I was outside of my licensing area, I was covered either way
Well that's one of the things I think a prosecution lawyer could dispute if the case arose?
I mean, can you be 'seeking hire' if you're out-of-area? Or maybe if you're with a circuit you could argue that you're seeking hire even if you're out-of-area?
I was exempt because I was answering a call for hire ( it was as my own return from a passenger I’d dropped off earlier in the day ) not because I was seeking hire, which would have been illegal outside of my licensed area.
I wonder if the 'seeking hire' exemption means that if you're working you're covered, even when out-of-area?
I mean, if they wanted to only cover in-area cabs then they'd have used the words 'plying for hire', surely?
What's the significance of using the phrase 'seeking hire' rather than 'plying for hire'?
That's what I was getting at regarding my supermarket visits while working and in Dundee (out of area), for example.
And if it's as you say, it's all a bit daft. You could take someone to Wales or Manchester without a belt, then have to put it on when you drop then, but then could remove it if you got a call from back home, but you're still out-of-area?
