Taxi Driver Online

As CRT hold all drivers/owners and vehicle detail as law in Scotland,self employed or not I personaly think the courts will count them as employer if it goes that far.

After all if they have the wrong details they are liable for legal action under the new act.

Which act are you refering to?

_________________

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

How many hens teeth would you like. I have loads of them.........or employed taxi drivers as you call them.

_________________
Grandad,

According to the messages on our cordic screen every now and then about keeping our details up to date with the booking office under Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.

The only thing the (Licensing of Booking Offices) Order 2009 requires from CRT is that they keep a record of the registration number of the vehicle and the name of the driver which does each hire, and that they take "reasonable steps" to ensure both are properly licensed.

[(Licensing of Booking Offices) Order 2009]

“(1A) The mandatory conditions referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) above are–

(a) that a record be kept of every booking for the hire of a relevant vehicle taken at the relevant premises;
(b) that a record be kept of–
(i) the registration number of the vehicle which was hired as the result of a booking taken at the relevant premises; and
(ii) the name of its driver at the time of that hire; and
(c) that the holder of the licence shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that any booking taken at the relevant premises from a member of the public for the hire of a relevant vehicle results in the hire of a vehicle which is–
(i) a relevant vehicle; and
(ii) being driven by a person who holds a licence granted under section 13 of the Act(6) and that licence is in effect.”.

CRT are not responsible for the insurance of the vehicle, nor are they legally required to determine the insurance status of the vehicle.
That is the responsibility of the vehicle's licence holder.

[From Edinburgh's conditions]

Registration and Insurance
6
The holder of a taxi licence shall hold in their own name the requisite vehicle registration document and the certificate of insurance in relation to their taxi required by Part VI of the Road Traffic Act 1988 or any other amending legislation and the holder of the licence shall be required to produce these documents to the Cab Inspector at any reasonable time on request. Where there is more than one licence holder, the vehicle registration document and the certificate of insurance shall be in the name of at least one of these holders. The vehicle registration document and certificate of insurance must also state the permanent address of the licence holder named in those documents.
7
The holder of a taxi licence shall ensure that a valid certificate of insurance or a valid cover note is carried within the vehicle to which it relates and is available for inspection by any passenger being carried within the vehicle, Authorised Officer or Constable.
8
The holder of a taxi licence shall not cause or permit their taxi to stand or ply for hire during any period it does not comply with the provisions of condition 7.

The licence holder doesn't change - licences are non transferable.
If the licence holder was xyz cabs LLP when it was issued, it will still be xyz cabs LLP at the time of the offence and it will still be xyz cabs LLP when the licence is up for renewal.
In the case of xyz cabs LLP being the licence holder, the responsibility passes to the director(s) of that company.
The one's with the questions to answer will be the one's who were directors at the time of the offence.

IMHO The driver has committed an offence, even if he was unaware of the fact.
If he can show in mitigation that he believed with good reason that he was insured, he may not face charges or they may be thrown out of court.

_________________

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

Yep think I gather that gusmac but if CRT are telling the driver that the vehicle has 9 days for it to expire then the driver has a fair bit evidence.

Afterall the insurance company would not just null and void it as there would have been warning letters first to the owner.

End of the day the driver has no chance of knowing if the owner has paid his premium or not if the certificate of insurance is in the cab,so what would the court see the solution to this?

A,the driver buys his own insurance or B the booking office who must provide reasonable steps to ensure the vehicle is properly licensed being classed as the employer?

Afterall CRT are employing the driver to take the job they booked and I would see it different if it was a street cab.

Think skulls right and somethings not right with this story tbh.

The booking office do not employ the driver. He is an employee of the licence holder or a self employed subcontractor.

CRT may ask for insurance details from the licence holder, but they are not obliged to do so.
Any messages coming over their system are only as good as the information they have and that's only as good as whatever the licence holder tells them.
If the policy is void for any reason, CRT wouldn't know unless the licence holder informed them. Ditto the driver.
Now someone must have received a notification from the insurers. This person has a lot to answer for.

BTW it does smell a bit fishy.

_________________

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

The definition of "course of Employment" could or should, in my opinion, also include the self employed,why would it be excluded?

Certainly the european courts of justice do not apply the same narrow definition in the status of workers, their definition includes those who are economically dependent and the self-employed. It also covers those who are engaged on temporary contracts and those who are engaged through labour agencies.

I'm not at all convinced that taxi drivers are always truly self employed anyway.

Well, it doesn't look like we're getting to the bottom of this one anytime soon as the man who started the thread is not telling what, he must by now know. The owners position in respect to his driver being charged for driving his vehicle without insurance and what he is prepared to do about it?

Personally, if I was the owner, the driver had tried to burn with the Internet, CRT, and the Cab Inspector without first giving me the chance to respond and to put matters right. I would be more than happy to see the little pr*ck take the rap.

Maybe Big Paul will give us an update?

Well the drivers can't be self-employed AND CRT treated as an employer. The two are mutually exclusive.



Well gusmac seems to suggest otherwise, but either way that's a matter for the licensing legislation and the council's rules rather than of real relevance for a criminal prosecution under the Road Traffic Act or whatever.

As I said it's an absolute offence so it may seem unfair because it's difficult for the driver to ascertain whether the vehicle is insured or not, but basically the law says tough titties.

It's like speeding - even if your speedo is incorrect and it says you're doing 70 when you're really doing 90 then that's just tough luck as far as the law is concerned.

Of course, as I said further up the thread perhaps if the circumstances seem really unfair then the prosecution may be dropped or the circumstances used in mitigation.

'Employment' means an employer/employee relationship, thus by definition excluding the self-employed.

This would therefore exclude most of the taxi trade, except of course grandad's drivers



It's certainly a complex area and I equally certainly don't know all the ins and outs, but I suspect for the purposes of the rule in question it comes down to the perennial question of whether the driver is self-employed or an employee.

By the way, the as I recall it the National Minimum Wage legislation also uses a definition called 'worker', but precisely what this entails I'm not sure.



Yes indeed Stu, as many of us have been banging on about for years.

It's certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that this could become a test case for employment status in the taxi trade, rather than the more obvious route of things like employee rights and taxi/NI treatment where the distinction of employee/self-employed is often the subject of judicial proceedings.

Which would be doubly ironic in view of the fact that it's the PH in bus lanes debate that seems to have heightened interest in the employee/self-employed distinction in the private hire trade rather than again the more obvious questions.

What's the bet Big Paul, now knows the real story, but he's not telling, I wonder why?

Steady on there Dusty,such presumptiousness

Next thing you know I will be into S&M or some other wild accusation, remember that one.
It's hard to type when you are hinging from the chandelier you know.

Really boring.

Isn't it a bit presumptious that you think you're the only person that's ever posted on here who's called Stu?

And no doubt it's purely a coincidence that just when I mention the word 'stu' someone called stu who's posted about twice in three years suddenly appears out of the woodwork.