Taxi Driver Online

I am not trying to justify law breaking, I am simply questioning the validity of the idea that provision of a free service, as a one-off, constitutes hire and reward. I understand that the drivers are being paid, but this is just a normal wage, driving these vehicles is not their everyday job, and the money they are paid would be paid regardless of whether they drove the vehicles or not. So although they may be "rewarded" for completing the work, the reward does not come from the passenger or any third party acting on their behalf.

_________________
Sometimes the most telling information comes from what's not said...

The hire and reward element relates to the vehicle not the driver.
If the vehicle is being used in connection with hire or reward it has to be licensed, and only licensed drivers can drive licensed vehicles.

Big difference between social kindness and financial benefit.

The shopping center gains by increasing their customer base by so-called free offers.

It's no different than a restaurant charging fortunes for a meal and offering a so-called free ride home.

_________________
IDFIMH

You might also want to refer to Albert-v-Motor Insurers Bureau. You'll find from that case that giving lifts on a regular basis for any form of money needs hire and reward insurance. Whilst rickshaws per se don't need any insurance as they're not motor vehicle, nor were the early hackney carriages. And the drivers of those needed to be licenced.

Cheers guys, the deed has been done, but I will write to our LO to see what his opinion is.

So are you saying there should be no distinction made between giving a customer a lift once, and offering the service to every customer? The shopping centre don't even directly benefit as it's the shops that pay their bills.

_________________
Sometimes the most telling information comes from what's not said...

The law says that there is no difference. Correct me if I am wrong but the shopping centre IS offering the service to every customer.

_________________
Grandad,

Are you implying a burglar is ok if he only does it once?

_________________
IDFIMH

No, I'm saying he cannot be called a commercial burglar if he only does it once. Having read up on Albert v MIB, it is clear that the regularity of the provision of such services is an important factor when determining whether they should require hire and reward insurance. It is also dependent on whether the activity in question could be seen as a business activity - which I think in this case it could. I'd be curious to see how it could be proven that the business had financially benefited from it, however.

_________________
Sometimes the most telling information comes from what's not said...

The business doesn't have to financially benefit from it for it to be hire and reward. The EU case of Glockner Ambulanz says irrespective of the status of the operator (plc, private individual, not-for-profit etc) then it is "commercial activity.

I have my cars cleaned twice a week; the business my not benefit from that either.

As a one-off promo gimmick, I'd leave well alone. If it were to become a regular occurrence, that' a different matter.

That's what I'm saying - it was a one-off thing whereby customers could travel up to one mile. Not exactly the same thing as the customer getting in a car which is part of a regular service and expecting to pay money to get where they want to go.

_________________
Sometimes the most telling information comes from what's not said...

But the OP asked if it was legal, it is not.

The question you seem to be asking now is, is it in the public interest to prosecute.

Clearly not, but words of advice from the council's licensing department wouldn't go amiss.

_________________
IDFIMH

What I'm saying is that the legality of it or specifically the requirement of hire/reward insurance to do it, is affected by its regularity.

_________________
Sometimes the most telling information comes from what's not said...

You are talking out of your backside. The requirement for hire or reward insurance if you are working for hire or reward is absolute. If an accident happens and the insurance is not correct it would not stand up in court if you said "i only did it once so I don't need insurance."

_________________
Grandad,

I am going around in circles here. If this activity were not defined as "working for hire and reward" then they wouldn't need hire and reward insurance to do it would they? I don't know how many different ways I can say the same thing.

_________________
Sometimes the most telling information comes from what's not said...