Taxi Driver Online

so would a 17 seater at a hotel then, or at a fee-paying school

ring VOSA?...

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

The Works transport is carrying the companies paid employees, the Hotel transport is designed to carry customers that they hope will help pay for hotel and the very transport itself...it's the complete opposite to employee transport.

You can complain about this until you are blue in the face, it's legal and that's that.

What you should be doing is pushing for this loophole to be ended, rather than arguing the semantics of whether it is or isn't a single contract.
No exemption, problem solved.

_________________

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

I'm still not convinced it is fully legal, but neither am I rich enough to pay a lawyer to find out.

make a complaint to the local authority

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

It can't.

I'm guessing the guests are the people they have the contract with, and in that case, if your law was to follow the case law down here, then that hotel could only use a contract once with just the one punter per day.

_________________
IDFIMH

The law.

_________________
IDFIMH

I'm not sure it is legal, but clearly it would make it easier to sort if the exemption was binned.

_________________
IDFIMH

Perhaps the transport and hotel are owned by separate legal entities?

_________________

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

My point exactly.

_________________

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

Lets bin it then...it has no other use than to be an excuse for abuse anyway.

An employer can provide free transport for its employees as there is no hidden charge or fee involved; no operators licence needed as there's no element of hire and reward. A hotel/restaurant/airport cannot provide free transport for customers or potential customers as there is an element of hire and reward involved.

As others have said, Rout v Swallow Hotels is the case to read.

There is no 7 day or 24 hour exemption for vehicles over 8 passenger seats. they must be licenced as PSV or have a section 19 licence.

The deciding factor in Rout v Swallow is how is the vehicle paid for? Usually by the profit made by the sale of hotel services or profit on meals, unless it is a genuinely free service open to any member of the public whether or not the go to the hotel or restaurant. Even on those grounds, it is very dubious that the operation is legal as the car/minibus would still be paid for by hotel profits.

I'm pretty sure there was a case involving voluntary contributions as well

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

but is a full D1 licence required for staff or pupil transport if the driver is paid....

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

No, it depends whether or not fares are being charged,i.e carrying passengers for hire and reward. A bit dubious maybe with a fee-paying school where obviously part of the fees include "free" .transport.