Taxi Driver Online

I think you are probably right. Different licensing regime though.
Strange these guys should need a licence if someone doing the same with taxi bookings doesn't

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

I made that point a couple of years back and JD bit my head off.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

well there you go then...

I still can't see the difference between an enabler and a standard PH office.

A PH office may run the vehicles, but then again they may not, so it's just a contract between the office and the owner/driver, so what's the difference between that and an a so-called enabler?

None that I can see. Surely the purpose of the legislation is to licence cars and drivers, AND somone who actually takes the bookings with the public and passes them on to drivers.

Thus before the booking gets to the driver there must be an operator somewhere in the licensing chain.

As I said last night, perhaps the crux of the issue is that if an enabler gives work to a licensed operator then the enabler doesn't need a licence. Remember, an operator, according to the legislation is:

"operate" means in the course of business to make provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a private hire vehicle;

So an enabler passing work to an existing operator doesn't meet the definition of an operator, because he's making provision to another operator, not a PHV.

But if an enabler passes work to a PH vehicle direct without an operator's licence, then the enabler must be a licensed operator.

Precisely what 'make provision for' means is to that extent irrelevant, because somone in the chain has to have an ops licence, so if it's ascertained that there's no licence in the chain then there's clearly an illegality, and then the conduct of the enabler and the driver could be examined to see who would need the operators licence, but clearly if an enabler is taking bookings and passing them on to a driver who doesn't have an ops licence then the enabler should have one.

But, to repeat what I said earlier, if the enabler is passing work to another operator then that's OK, because the enabler doesn't meet the statutory definition, which refers to bookings for a PHV - the enabler in this case is dealing with an operator, not PHVs.



By the way, the definition refers to the 'making provisiion for the invitation or acceptance of 'bookings', not vehicles.

Also, unless otherwise stated, in the above when I refer to an enabler I mean someone doing a bit more than just providing a directory, or similar - if the work ends up with a PH driver and there's no operator in the chain then whether it's the driver or enabler who needed the operator's licence would depend on the particular circumstances.

_________________
Caledonian Cabbie

I could not have said it more eliquently myself, I can see you have given it a lot of thought!
It is a difficult issue for ppl, but as I stated earlyer, giving the work to Taxi[HC] drivers direct would cut out all the red tape and B.S.

This has also thrown up the stupidity of the PH regs in England & Wales. Two vehicles, Two Drivers, same saloon model & colour, same plastic plates on. One Driver can do the job direct NP and the other gets engulfed in red tape.

There is no difference.

_________________
IDFIMH

Indeed

_________________
Caledonian Cabbie

There is obviously some confusion and disagreement as to what exactly was meant when the above was enacted. You have to think and wonder what was intended at the time of the act. It certainly wasn't intended that an internet site that placed a booking with a company would be considered a provider. When restaurants and hotels make a booking for customers or guests they could not surely be considered a provider. Nor could they be held responsible if anything went wrong on the journey.

Gusmac posted this and I can see why he considered it to be an appropriate answer



but if you actually check what was meant in this definition you come up with this



Imo I feel that No. 2 is more appropriate to this situation although even that is not specific enough really.





Again do these companies actually supply anything?

It could well be argued that they invite people to to make bookings, but, again those bookings will go through an operator who is indeed licensed to accept the same and provide the required vehicle. Would this be enough for a court of law to say the 'enabler' was breaking the law. It could be argued that they are not inviting anybody they are merely providing a place to connect with the provider. It's a tangled web and imo if you offer this type of service you should have to have some kind of license

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

going a bit further

if the quotes are using google mapping i assume google needs an ops licence too then?


if no LO/LA in the country thinks these websites breach regs, why would anyone here?....

I can see Toots has also got her teeth into the subject matter now as well . The act came into force before internet and google and was made so that there would be somewere in the chain 'an operator'.

anyway, if i get a booking VIA a website should i refuse it? it will be the customer/passenger who contacts me remember.....

Toots....



the websites dont book me, the punters do that direct, no different to someone getting my number from yellow pages - and they dont need an ops licence do they

That's you, but, that's not the case with the likes of Cabfind

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

i take bookings off OTS ltd, should i check thier credentials?

No but they should of checked yours!!