Taxi Driver Online

Ali, Big Paul doesn't want to hear any of this. He's only interested in what he wants to believe. Why, because in his world, good things happen to good people and Paul, and his chums, are the good guys, or didn't you know?

Ali writes:



That's why the insurance premium should be part of the agreement, and paid in full, for the remainder of the transfer period, until the new owner takes over. However, long that may be, but that's not to say the new owner will be up to date with the insurance. And if you're the one driving the vehicle the responsibility falls on you.


Okay Paul

I pay mine monthly and I get a year's certificate every August.

If you don't make the payments, you get a recorded delivery letter telling you the certificate is cancelled. LA is informed at the same time.
I've been with several insurance companies/ brokers over the years and most of them work this way.

_________________

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

Isn't the licenceholder in most of these cases an LLP or similar?
Shouldn't the insurance policy therefore be in the name of the LLP and be transfered along with the cab, licence etc upon sale of the company?

_________________

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

Skull - don't know what your issue is but I came on here to ask a question for a colleague. Virtually everyone offered useful advice which I'll pass on to the guy concerned. You, however, and for whatever reason, chose to tell me to "go fu*k" myself. You then go on to tell other forum members that you know me so well that you even know what I'm thinking and that I only want to hear positive things.
Mate, I don't know you from Adam, so why the abuse? Or are you just another sad keyboard warrior?

For the record, the guy is going to see the cab inspector tomorrow after seeing a solicitor today. Oh, Skull - and again for the record - he'll get legal aid to fight the matter should it come to it. However, should he need any further helpful pointers I tell him to ask some of his many friends in the taxi trade to point you out so he can benefit further from your counsel personally.

PS - if you have nothing helpful to say, just don't reply. There's a world of difference between 'hearing what he wants to hear'-type replies and having someone tell you something you might not want to hear but appreciate hearing because it helps.

Anyway, thanks again gents. Nice to know there are still some decent people in the business.

Big Paul writes:




You wrote the above didn't you, well stop being a dick and reading into my post what wasn't there. I don't want to see your mate shafted any more than anyone else.

And that just shows you know dick all about anything. You've no chance of getting legal aid for a traffic offense.

Oh and spare me the keyboard Hardman bit, taxi drives are not known for having backbones. That's why your trades fuc*ed, or haven't you noticed.

Paul, you're a dick, and I don't need to know you to know that.

Seems to be fairly straightforward to me, section 143 of the road traffic act

143 Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks.

(1)Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—
(a)a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road [F1or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and

(b)a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road [or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.

(2)If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence.

(3)A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—
(a)that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b)that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c)that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.


If it is as straightforward as Big Paul states then the driver can't be held responsible for that.

Well if that's the case, then why did the cop charge the driver and not the owner bearing in mind he had the evidence right in his hand, a "valid" certificate.

coz he was driving?

CC

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

Easy option. Both are guilty.

_________________

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

yeah....perhaps the driver less so?

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

I don't believe there was a "valid" certificate. If there had been the cop would have seen it for himself.

not a comment on the case....but I love the way skull and jasbar always call the police,. rozzers, old bill, police.......cops! its like a 1970's 80's US show......I'm waiting for TJ Hooker

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

If the cert. had been revoked, it wouldn't be valid.
The driver may not have been aware of this.

_________________

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

Book 'im Dano......

_________________

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