This is so petty but if it makes you feel superior I'll play your silly game and answer the questions
London Uncensored wrote:
If a PH driver is hailed from the street can he stop and pick up the fare; if not why ?
No they can't because they aren't a taxi.
Wrong, PH cannot ply for hireThat's because they're not a taxi you muppet
London Uncensored wrote:
Can a PH hire driver go onto a station car park or Hackney Carriage rank and pick up. If not why ?
They can't pick up on a rank as this contravenes section 64.3 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. I see no reason or know of any legislation that prevents them from going into a car park or to a pick up and drop off area provided by a station.
They can indeed go into a car park and pick up a pre-booked job and drop off passengers too. But what they can't do is sit there and wait making the car visible to the general public for immediate hiring !That's not what you asked though is it
London Uncensored wrote:
If there is a line of PH vehicles parked on a public highway, drivers in or outside waiting to be hired. Is this a rank or not ?
In or outside what?
Their vehicles. This constitutes an illegal rank !London Uncensored wrote:
If a PH driver is sitting on a public highway and a member of the general public approaches the driver and asks if he is available and he asks where are they going. Has he committed an offence ?
No the driver has just asked the person where they are going. If however the driver then allows the person to be conveyed in the vehicle the driver would be committing an offence.
Wrong he is TOUTING and if he took the job he would be driving without insurance !
London Uncensored wrote:
If he does accept the fare after asking the person where they are going. What laws has he breached if any ?
And if consequently there is an accident and the passenger, himself and his car is damaged what could happen ?
Clearly the driver would be in breach of the town police clauses act of 1847 for which s.45 explains the penalty and of the private hire conditions of licence. With regard to the insurance issue that would depend entirely on what insurance the driver has but the passenger is always insured. If the driver does not have the correct insurance then they could also be charged with driving without insurance.
You keep quoting the Town Police clauses Act because illegally plying for hire is sticking in your throat and you are so vain you can't write it. Isn't it funny how you recognise TOUTING and driving without insurance in this question but not the one before !I quoted the town police clauses act because you asked what laws would be broken. It doesn't stick in my throat at all it's not something I've ever done tbh I've never needed to. If I want to pick up off the streets I'll use my taxi license and do it. The one before was just being asked a question, it's not illegal to answer it, until another action is taken
I've answered them but I fail to see what relevance they have to this thread.
Because I asked where the cars would be parked for this mini-cab office and if they were on full view to the public for immediate hiring. It's what is called a debate and that's what happens in debates ! Nobody knows until the flamin thing is built ffs you cannot presume all ph are the same, just as we cannot presume all taxis are the same. I've seen taxis illegally ply their trade
London Uncensored wrote:
No you plonker
There's no need for name calling now is there
Well it was a silly comment you made and clearly shows that you know something about the job that you do. But not enough to operate. That's why PH need NVQ's. Then they can never say they didn't understand !Of course they do because we all know what the NVQ course provides don't we
London Uncensored wrote:
The reason why you refuse to answer the questions I put forward is simple. YOU CANT, without making yourself look a complete idiot. This is the same reason Sussex departed with his tail between his legs to another thread.
The reason I didn't answer the question was because somebody already had and I don't need you to make me look like an idiot I can do that all by myself as evidently so can you
LU wrote:
I'm not interested in who was found not guilty of a breach in the Hackney Carriage law. These are the people that you are trying to use to justify your claims.
I think you should at least read some of the cases so you may understand why they were found not guilty and I don't remember making any claims that I need to justify
Quote:
The case law I have quoted is from numerous cases of mini-cab operators and proprietors that have challenged legislation and failed in the high courts.
Your point is what exactly? If they're doing something illegal then of course they're going to fail
LU wrote:
I have quoted mine and you have used a guy parking up to take a p*ss !
I never mentioned any guy parking up to take a p*ss, I think you're taking the p*ss though
LU wrote:
There is currently NO "Case Law" from private hire or mini-cabs that has successfully challenged Hackney Carriage legislation. Your claims are fraudulent and a deliberate attempt to mislead readers !
I haven't made any claims I have no idea what you're rabbiting on about tbh and again I question the relevance to this thread about a ph office being sited in Liverpool

LU wrote:
F*ck me is anyone a Hackney carriage driver on here ? Or, are you all mini-cabs posting on a Taxi driver forum because it makes you feel like a Licensed Taxi driver ?
Well I for one do not feel like a licensed taxi driver because I post on here even though I am but if it makes me like you I'm glad I'm not driving a taxi
