Taxi Driver Online

I happened to be around Wimbledon at the weekend and noticed dozens of liveried courtesy cars floating around, presumably for the tennis. None of them seemed to display any sort of private hire licences.

Does anyone know if these cars are in fact licenced p/h, and do their drivers have p/h licences?

They're obviously being paid to carry passengers around!

why worry?

ive bigger worries than what execs get what perks

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

Was there any tennis at Wimbledon last weekend?

_________________
Grandad,

Probably not, but Queens Club isn't that far, norf o' the river guv..

I think if they were carrying spectators then they would have to be licensed, but they are carrying players and there coaches, so they aren't gaining an advantage as the law states.

In short if Wimbledon owns the cars, pay the drivers (if they're not volunteers), then what financial advantage are they gaining? The players aren't paying Wimbledon for anything.

_________________
IDFIMH

The cars appear to be leased; someone is being paid to drive them; someone is paying for the passengers to be carried. they are being carried for hire and reward. Rout v Swallow Hotel.

They need to be licenced as private hire.

if the cars are being leased by the Wimbledon tennis club and the drivers are being employed by the Wimbledon tennis club to carry their guests at the expense of the Wimbledon tennis club, then I am not sure that I agree with you.

_________________
Grandad,

This appears to be a popular practice at major events. The key is whether or not any business benefit is being gained from providing this transport? No money needs to change hands for the hire and reward element to be satisfied. If, for example, an international company sponsored an event and cars were dispatched to collect corporate guests, friends and other invitees, then this activity could be traced back to the business benefit enjoyed by the sponsors and the event organisers. The Swallow Hotels case supports this view as a general principle. However, proving that this activity is unlawful could be problematic. You have to remember that this practice may contravene Section 46 (d) of the '76 Act and the evidence would have to satisfy the criminal standard of proof ie beyond all reasonable doubt.

My thoughts entirely and this is a matter that has been championed by the LPHCA recently.