Taxi Driver Online

At the moment they may not require drivers to have the 101 removed.

_________________
Grandad,

The law is clear if anyone in the British government cares to read it properly. ANY "commercial operation" i.e. where money changes hands by whatever means, regardless of the status of the operator, needs a licence without the 101 code, simples. It's what Martin Allen has ben talking to our friends in Brussels about for most of this year.

Regardless of whether the driver gets paid or not, if the punters or hirer (hint of commercial transaction there) pay, then it IS commercial/hire and reward/not for profit etc. I've already quoted case laws in posts above; Glockner Ambulanz, Lundberg to name two that spring to mind.

Wanna email this guy and ask him wtf he will pay licensend firms to cover his "volunteer" projects work?

(note the 1st sentence...

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

it should be ANY number of seats, or CT groups will just fall back on volunteer cars and 8 seaters

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

Drive under 9 setas for hire and reward and you need a ph or hack licence, the EU laws are very clear on what is "commercial use". Look again at Glockner amulanz.

The latest from Martin Allen is that there's more rumblings from the EU that HMG will be in the deep poo over the D licence category; the 101 exemption will no longer be allowed, and that all drivers must have the driver CPC. The meeting is next week, so I'll post an update when I hear anything.

Also interesting news is how many councils are "not renewing" or withdrawing funding from CT Groups. Deal Council have withdrawn CT funding and have placed all CT car work with local cab companies, saving the council £1700 a week; Hull have withdrawn all CT funding, and this week there's a CT meeting at Kent County Council to discuss future CT matters. Maybe HMG have realised they've been sussed breaking EU law and the CT balloon is about to burst.

Our LA is Introducing a new "SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT" as part of a Community Planning review of Community & Passenger Transport provision where all tenders will come under one umbrella, This CPP includes Council, NHS, Colleges, Housing Associations and Registered Social Landlords, Police Scotland, Fire and Rescue, the voluntary sector organisations and other related parties.

In their brief they state the following as being a consideration in how tenders will be awarded:

Community Benefits/ Social Value

A new “Adding Value to Communities through Procurement Policy” was agreed in March this year and implemented from 1st April 2014. This policy creates an opportunity to add community benefit through economic, environmental and/ or social means to appropriate contracts. Operators may be asked to consider added value in line with contracts awarded to them via this framework agreement.

Now, that seems to me that there might well be a bias towards the CT types who claim to be all about community and not about profit!

It's either that or they expect us grunts to work for less so the community can get more for nowt?

Or am I reading it wrong? What is your interpretation on what they say?

What it means is that the lowest tender will still get the job. What it is supposed to mean is that if for instance you have a driver with a particular skill that is required under the contract, you will be able to charge a premium on that contract. In reality, it wont work like that.

_________________
Grandad,

In effect if you are disability trained, you could charge extra for that training. That could then be deemed illegal because you would be charging a disabled person more than an able-bodied person albeit not directly.

You are not charging the disabled person anything.

_________________
Grandad,

Just heard today (first day of Local Authorities new School term) that one of the CT Minibuses whom the council has used for the last couple of years has had it's contract removed because of a complaint from a Proper and legally Compliant Minibus operator in the area brought it to the attention of the Council that because he had to have have fully qualified D1 drivers with a CPC and using fully Licensed vehicles that he could not see how a CT type community interest company Minibus operator could use Drivers with little more than a Car drivers license to ferry School kids about.

Looks like its One-Nil to the Licenced operator and that at last in at least this instance the CT operator has been usurped.

Like I say, It's hearsay but from a good source...maybe the Birds are coming home to roost.

agreed but you could be charging "the council" more for a service for a disabled person and that is illegal.

One of the Transport Groups round here have been reported for using drivers that aren't licensed correctly.

Has any enforcement agency taken action against them?