Taxi Driver Online

hawiya 5 - 0....wheeze keyz r theze?

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

Amazing feat of comprehension - knowing someone or something when you've never even met them. Believe what you want buddy, more fool you empty Skull.

Take it you're not a taxi driver then?

Oh, and why the obsession with DICK? Are you trying to let the forum in on a secret? XX

I have no idea why the Police charged the driver,perhaps because it's their job but I think you can claim special reasons to avoid acquiring points on your license in these cases,as I said, if it is as Big Paul states,and we have no reason to think otherwise then I cannot see why the driver should or could be held liable for this.

Doesn't this kind of thing fall under the cruelty to dumb animals category? I have a list of these as long as your arm.

If there was an certificate of insurance in the vehicle then how is the driver meant to know if the policy is valid or not?

I just pay mines in full rather than in instalments, too skittery and they will add interest I'm sure, just to increase the feeling you are being ripped off even more than you already are, for example I reckon over the years I/we must have paid at least thirty thousand pounds for all the different insurances Car/buildings and contents/taxi and all the other usurious PPI type rubbish they can think of.

I have made one claim in my life when I was awarded the staggering sum of £57.00 towards an £1900.00 roof repair, so not even 0.0002% of the premiums we have paid.

What is insurance actually for?

So Paul, if he's been to a solicitor, then why the fu*k, are you on here spouting your shi*e? Oh and incidentally, it's the solicitor who applies for legal aid on his client's behalf but your pal already knows. He's getting legal without even going through the process. Well, that's a new one on me.

Paul, I think this is all bullshit. You come on to a forum, asking for advice when your chum has already been to a solicitor and arranged legal aid to fight his case. Surely, if there is, no case to answer, the charges would simply be dropped, with the owner finding himself in the dock, facing the conviction.

Oh and didn't you say something about him taking the problem up with the Cab Inspector?

He's been a busy boy in the last 24hours.

Now let's think about this, if the new owner failed to pay the insurance, he would have to know the taxi was without insurance beyond a certain date. And if the plate holder failed to pay the insurance on the owner's behalf, both would have to know when the insurance would expire.

Would you leave the above to chance, if you were the owner or the plate holder knowing you would be found out?

So why isn't anyone coming forward to take responsibility for the driver?

Surely, it's a simple case of, “don't worry it was my fault, and I'm one to blame, and I will take responsibility.”

Problem solved.

What has CRT got to say about it?

They must hold the detail nowadays.

They should have blocked the taxi from logging on and the driver would have been aware when asking control.

I was told that's how it worked, but I'm not sure what to believe with the information supplied so far.

Don’t agree it’s “spouting shi*te” but I’ll try to explain for the hard of thinking.
Monday – incident happened. He called me asking if I knew anyone who’d been in the same situ.
Tuesday – he arranges to see a solicitor.
Wednesday – he sees the solicitor. Gets advice and told he’ll more than likely get legal aid if the Fiscal presses it. He’ll get it because of his income – nothing to do with alleged road traffic act violations.
Thursday (today) – going to speak to Cab Inspector and CRT

Summary: you’re timing’s all askew (perhaps your mind’s being clouded by anger and assumption).

Regardless of what you think of the quality or merit of my coming on here and posting can’t you accept there’s a legitimate concern at play? That raises two points – a) if it’s happened to this guy it could happen to me, so there’s a lesson for all taxi or PH drivers to learn from.
b) This is a forum for guys who drive cabs or PH, so it seems logical to ask those people if they have encountered such a situation before and, if so, how they dealt with it and what the outcome was. Simples!




Think what you like, bud. You clearly can’t follow a timeline. Just to clarify: I came on here asking for advice BEFORE he’d spoken to anyone. It doesn’t matter what the solicitor subsequently might have indicated over the likelihood of there being a case to answer or not – that decision lies solely with the Procurator Fiscal. Whether the owner finds himself in the dock or not is a matter for the police and Fiscal going forward, not the driver or me for that matter.

Summary: you’re thinking’s all wrong (perhaps your mind’s being clouded by anger and assumption and an inability to work out a simple timeline).






I don’t know for a fact what the insurance payment arrangements were but from the driver I understand the new owner was paying the former owner payments to cover the premiums. I also understand that the former owner ceased the payment of the premiums on the mistaken understanding that the change of ownership was complete. In my opinion he should have at a minimum called the new owner to confirm but apparently this didn’t happen and the new owner was none the wiser that that the premiums had been stopped. You’re right to wonder why a new owner would leave himself open to such a own goal. But as I say, I don’t know the facts of it and am only going on what I understand to be the situation based on the info I’ve been told.
Maybe someone will come forward and hold their hand up, but that remains to be seen and I hope your right and they do.


I’ll say again – if you haven’t got anything helpful to say then just don’t get involved. You’re only showing yourself up to be an ignoramus by spouting off apparent ‘facts’ when you know neither me, the driver concerned or the true circumstances. You just comes across as the type of guy who believes he’ll get his point across by shouting over everyone. I’m struggling to fathom why you’re getting so involved if you’re so dismissive of the whole thing. I’m also struggling with why you’ve spent almost an hour obsessing over it again over three separate posts in the early hours of the morning. Baffling.

As regards being locked out the CRT system if no insurance is in place – yes, that is the case. In this case, the driver told me he’d informed the new owner when the reminder message was at 23 days to expiry and had written another reminder on the chucky envelope he gives the new owner each week when he dropped it off last week. At the point of being told there was no insurance the message that morning had informed the driver he had nine days to expiry.

Great news Paul as he has all the evidence he needs,CRT have it on record.

Firstly, Paul, there was no time-line by the time your thread went up, Your mate had already arranged to speak to a solicitor without seeking advice on this forum.



Your thread went up on, Tue May 01, 2012 1:01 pm.



Legal aid depends not only on your earnings but the merits of the case, and if the fiscal presses for a prosecution, it's because he has your mate on the hook. However, if the case is as open and shut as you say, although you, “don’t know the facts of it and am only going on what I understand to be the situation based on the info I’ve been told.“ there might not even be a case.



Your mate seems to be doing a lot of running around speaking to everyone but the one man who can make all the difference, the owner. Don't you think he's started at the wrong end of this problem? All he needs is the owner to come forward to explain matters, and it's all over.

This case won't even make it into court, and if it does, surely it will be the owner in the dock.



Paul, I don't think you're quite getting this. It's not about the owner putting his hand up, if and when he feels like it, but based on what you have told everyone here, the owner has no choice but to come forward.

And lastly, this is why I think you're being fed bum information.

I suggest you speak to your chum and get to the truth of the matter, there seems to be a lot he's not telling you.

Simple enough for you?

Oh and incidentally Paul, your mate should have contacted the owner before giving you the story to post on this forum, running off to CRT, a Solicitor and the Cab Inspector. It's sounds like he's trying to burn the guy without first giving him the chance to clear matters up. For what might be, an honest mistake. Although, I can't see how anyone could let it happen with so much riding on their licence.

And I'll tell you what a cop told me, many years ago, when I got points on my licence, “You are a professional driver and ignorance of the law is no defense.”

I can accept there might be special circumstances in this case, but something doesn't smell right with your story.

Would have to agree on that.

Driving without insurance is an absolute offence, so whether the driver thinks there's a valid policy in place or not is irrelevant. If there's no policy then he's bang to rights, even if he genuinely thought there was one.

The exemption in subsection (3) seems to be addressed at company car drivers, basically.

(3)(a) is clearly intended to make sure that someone using a hire car can't get away with it just by saying they thought it was insured.

(3)(b) mentions 'course of employment' which would seem to exclude the self-employed.

So if a taxi driver is hiring a vehicle and thus isn't employed and is instead categorised as self-employed then the exemption can't apply.

Thus an 'employed' taxi driver would get away with it if he was genuinely unaware that there was no policy in force, but as we all know employed taxi drivers are like hens' teeth.

But of course in view of the unusual circumstances of the case the prosectuor might decide not to proceed, or if he is prosecuted then the unusual circumstances could be used in mitigation.