Taxi Driver Online

100%.

_________________
IDFIMH

So if the council aren't responsible for basic compliance tests, what do officials actually get paid for?

Take what the ombudsmen says to its logical conclusion, then no point applying for licences because it's our responsibility rather than the council's to ensure everything is tickety-boo

Not really sure about how it all works, and could just about understand that the council may not be responsible for all losses arising from their negligence.

But the ombudsman makes it sound like the council have no responsibility at all with regards to compliance, so what is the council's purpose, precisely?

I suppose they are saying that at the time of licensing/relicensing it is the council's duty to ensure things are above board, after that it's not down to them.

_________________
IDFIMH

What little respect I had for them has evaporated entirely

They will get zero support from us in future on ANY topic

Thanks to one and all for your views and observations, but it looks like this one has run its course!

I am however, still after the company.
Baring in mind the complexities of pinning the guy down, I am going after the Ltd. Company via invoicing. The Al Capone method.

He said from the outset (witnessed) that he would pay my legal expenses and and invoicing contractor relationship had already been established.

Invoices have been going in for the last three months, laying the foundations to send in the debt collectors with a Statutory Demand and a threat to wind the company up.

Anyone got experience with this?

Maybe I've got it wrong, but wasn't it axiomatic that there was never a hire and reward policy in place, and the insurance certificate presented to the council was only ever endorsed for social and domestic?

I could see your point if an H&R policy was cancelled during the currency of the plate, and an SDP policy taken out instead. It might be considered unreasonable for the council to be able to detect something like that with its compliance procedures, but surely basic processes should pick up the fact that there wasn't an H&R policy in place when the licence was applied for or renewed?

My point was that by specifically putting the onus on those *applying* for a licence, the ombudsman seems to think that the council has no compliance responsibilities at all

Bingo, got it in one.

The policy was fraudulently obtained by the company, in my name without my knowledge for social domestic and pleasure use.

The Operator of the company has then presented this document to the LA to obtain a PHV license for the vehicle I was later to drive at the time of the incident (it was never my car, I had my own, this was merely one of a fleet of cars).

The Insurance company, when made aware of the facts, ie follow the money! promptly made the policy evaporate like it never existed. Unfortunately there are copies registered with the LA, myself and others.

Not happy to let this go, but can not see a way forward either

Apart from the lack of hire and reward cover, I'd totally forgotten that the vehicle proprietor had taken out the policy in your name

Which makes the ombudsman's opinion seem even more perplexing - what's the point of licensing procedures at all if local authorities are not even expected to check that an insurance policy is in the name of the applicant and covers the activity that the licence will be issue for?

Reading the ombudsman's decision as a whole, you'd never know that basically a fraudulent insurance policy had been used to obtain a licence.

In fact, if I hadn't known all the facts from the thread, the decision could just about be construed as Mr X driving his own vehicle and being the one who failed to insure the vehicle properly

I can see how the ombudsman could easily conclude that the council are not responsible for stuff arising from the accident (because that had nothing directly to do with the fraudulent policy or the licensing process), but it's the way the council is totally absolved of any responsibility regarding what are surely very basic licensing and compliance procedures

https://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/enviro ... 22-012-258

No but I do know a little about it
bear in mind you could end up spending few of grand and get nothing back so be sure you want to do that before you procede

First step is to go on the companies house website and make sure the limited company has not been dissolved many a dodgy businessmen will do that and set up a similar but new company. Once dissolved you can't go after them for bad debts effectively it removes all liability for past debts. If it hasn't been dissolved but is possibly in the process then you must lodge an objection to the dissolution on the grounds of debt liability. If the company is still trading then go to step 2

The second step is always to get a county court judgement that says he owes you the money and that can take 12 months or more once you have that you can ask the courts to recover the debt.

Thirdly if he doesn't pay up then you go to debt recovery

The fourth step is a winding up petition but requires as many creditors as possible and can cost from a few thousand to upwards of a million quid with barristers fees etc.

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

Join the campaign to get April fools jokes banned for 364 days a year !