Taxi Driver Online

On the subject of brand names. When I go to the pub I often ask for a diet coke. Many a time the person behind the bar has said we do diet pepsi is that ok. I asked once why the bothered to ask and I was told that if you ask for a diet coke and they give you a diet pepsi without telling you, they can be sued.

We're always receiving calls from customers who quite specifically state 'DONT SEND A HACKNEY.

18 years later, the 2003 Amendment to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, article 2 states...
(b) "taxi driver licence" means a licence granted under -

(i) section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847[5];

(ii) section 8 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869[6];

(iii) section 9 of the Plymouth City Council Act 1975[7];

(iv) section 51 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976; or

(v) section 13 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998[8];".

If Harvey's drivers are licensed under the Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, then according to the most up to date legal definition available, they are TAXI DRIVERS.

If thats the case then can you explain why the court seems to describe the following as PRIVATE HIRE DRIVERS and not Taxi drivers?

Case Reference: 96/5159 Mohamed Jaleel Hanaz Sefton Private hire driver
Date: 08 July 2010
Name: Mohamed Jaleel Hanaz
Address: Liverpool
Offence: (1)Sefton private hire plying for hire (2) No insurance
Sentence: £150 fine £95 costs 6 penalty points and £15 victim surcharge
Details: Guilty

Case Reference: 96/5157 Michael Joseph Lavelle Sefton Private hire driver
Date: 08 July 2010
Name: Michael Joseph lavelle
Address: Liverpool
Offence: (1)Sefton private hire plying for hire (2) No insurance
Sentence: £150 fine £95 costs 6 penalty points and £15 victim surcharge
Details: Guilty

Case Reference: 92/5137 James Le Surf Sefton Private hire driver
Date: 08 July 2010
Name: James LeSurf
Address: Liverpool
Offence: (1)Sefton private hire plying for hire (2) No insurance
Sentence: £150 fine £95 costs 6 penalty points and £15 victim surcharge
Details: Guilty

Case Reference: LCC v Ian Downey Sefton private hire driver
Date: 02 July 2010
Name: Ian Downey
Address: Liverpool
Offence: (1)Sefton private hire plying for hire (2) No insurance
Sentence: £290 fine £400 costs 8 penalty points and £15 victim surcharge
Details: Guilty

Case Reference: 91/5124 George Woods Sefton private hire driver
Date: 17 June 2010
Name: George Woods
Address: Bootle
Offence: (1) plying for hire (2) no insurance
Sentence: (1) £150 fine £95 costs (2) £150 fine 6 penalty points £15 victim surcharge
Details: Guiltyx2

Case Reference: 91/5124 George Woods Sefton private hire driver
Date: 17 June 2010
Name: George Woods
Address: Bootle
Offence: (1) plying for hire (2) no insurance
Sentence: (1) £150 fine £95 costs (2) £150 fine 6 penalty points £15 victim surcharge
Details: Guiltyx2

Case Reference: 93/5142 Alexander Moon Sefton Private hire driver
Date: 03/06/2010
Name: Alexander Moon
Address: Liverpool
Offence: Plying for hire
Sentence: Guilty
Details: £150 fine £95 costs and £15 victim surcharge

Case Reference: 93/5143 Colin Gerrard McDonald Sefton private hire driver
Date: 03/06/2010
Name: Colin Gerrard McDonald
Address: Seaforth
Offence: Plying for hire
Sentence: Guilty
Details: £170 fine £95 costs and £15 victim surcharge

Case Reference:90/5116 Paul Francis Tumilty Sefton Private hire driver
Date: 06/05/2010
Name: Paul Francis Tumilty
Address: Liverpool
Offence: (1) Plying for hire (2) No Insurance
Sentence: (1)£400 fine(2)£400 fine £95 costs 6 penalty points and £15 victim support charges
Details: Guilty

Case Reference: 89/5109 Samuel Francis Smith Sefton private hire driver
Date: 8 April 2010
Name: Samuel Francis Smith
Address: Thornton
Offence: (1) Plying for hire (2) No Insurance
Sentence: (1) £50 fine £95 costs (2) £150 fine and 6 penalty points
Details: Guilty x2


Any of those folks yours?



CC

our PH regs state quite clearly "no PH vehicle shall carry the words CAB or TAXI (or any word which could be mistaken for them) in any sign or advertising"

our PH regs state quite clearly "no PH vehicle shall carry the words CAB or TAXI (or any word which could be mistaken for them) in any sign or advertising"

But is using the word 'taxi' on clothing a form of sign or advertising? I presume if you do a google search for taxis in your area, most of your PH's will have linked themselves to the word 'Taxi'. So should they all be prosecuted??

See how vague they make the law? Its there to be used whem the LA doesn't like you by the sounds of it!!

Sometimes you just have to know when it time stop arguing and wind people up with a new strategy

our PH regs state quite clearly "no PH vehicle shall carry the words CAB or TAXI (or any word which could be mistaken for them) in any sign or advertising

We was already advertising our company name and number and the hackney drivers were not happy (To say the least) So out of principal for their arrogance towards us, i wanted to use the word taxi and thats why i'm gonna use the word 'TACSI'. They need to release they're not the law and threatening to go on strike if we're allowed to work our business in this manner is prehistoric and good for the PH business.