Taxi Driver Online

'Illegal' taxi service shut down


AN “ILLEGAL” taxi service that offered cheap rides in private vehicles has been shut down.

The online group Southampton Town Lifts is no longer operating after the Daily Echo yesterday revealed that the group was being used by motorists to act as unofficial taxi drivers.

Yesterday morning the Facebook group changed from a closed group, where only members could see posts, to "secret", meaning the group could only be searched for and seen by members, before being completely removed.

One of the people who ran the group commented on the Daily Echo website, saying: “Thanks for your support everyone. We set up the site because we were fed up with constant posts on our timeline about people wanting lifts.

“We weren’t trying to take business away from taxis, we weren’t aware we were doing anything illegal. The site has been taken down, but it’s not going to stop people seeking lifts from elsewhere because taxis are just too expensive.

“As for the claim that we may be putting girls at risk of assault; all of the members were vetted and no one was assaulted, every member was a friend and any nasty behaviour or comments resulted in removal from the group.”

Southampton City Council yesterday released a warning to residents about the dangers of using an unlicensed driver and reminded motorists they could be fined up to £5,000 and receive six points on their Driving Licence if they are unlicensed.

Simon Letts, leader of Southampton City Council, said: “Our licensing team went straight into action and contacted the people involved and explained to them what they can and cannot do and explained they cannot run this on Facebook.

“I suspect some people thought they could do it and have now been told it is not within the law and hopefully that is the end of it.

“The job of the council is to protect the public and that is the reason we carry out the proper checks for taxi drivers.

“There are sites were people can share vehicles for getting from A to B, but charging strangers a cash fee is running a taxi company.”

Chairman of Southampton Hackney Association, Ian Hall, said: “I am glad it has been taken down but the problem is how many others are operating in Southampton?

“The council must keep tags on this when we send them information and they need to investigate it straight away.

“On new years people need to be careful and some of the prices are more than what we would charge on the meter.”

source: http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/1417681 ... Sort=score

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

one down 100,000 others nationally doing the same though, from the Boy racers to the Village wrinklies, all in it not for the helping but for the wee bit of "Fuel Money"..just think of all those invalidated Insurances.

Insurance company's encourage car sharing.

_________________
Grandad,

Car Sharing yes, money changing hands or pecuniary compensation no..that would be deemed reward and certainly not social, domestic or pleasure usage.

You need to check this out. The insurance company's DO allow money to change hands for this kind of thing.
Here is a link to one car sharing scheme.
http://www.nationalcarshare.co.uk/downl ... urance.pdf

_________________
Grandad,

Not forgetting the wrinklies offering cut price airport trips as are community car schemes !

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

Sharing the running cost of a trip is one thing, making a profit out of it is another.

_________________
IDFIMH

Who is checking?

_________________
Grandad,

and who is going to bother enforcing such things unless it is a "shadow" taxi operation like the op where the council were losing out on license revenue

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

Whenever drivers complain about unlicensed people taking passengers here they get told that there is nothing that can be done unless they receive a complaint from a passenger who is willing to testify in court. like that is going to happen. There is a chap who does this all the time. He delivers pizzas for people at about £3.00 a go. Now the problem is that the people are also travelling with their pizza for free.

_________________
Grandad,

Trading standards and HMRC are quick enough in chasing up pirate, bootleg and illicit goods...seems to me though that Taxiing and PH are treated with contempt at all tiers of government until they get a bee in their bonnet stirred up courtesy of the Disability groups, equality or diversity groups, they seldom seek to protect us from the misdeeds of others but quick take an interest if we misdo towards the public.

If old Granny "A" is running old Granny "B" to the Hairdressers and taking money for it, then she is as guilty as any other unlicensed Pseudo taxi driver and should be banged to rights or at least given a warning, she may not see it, but she is stealing the work from others by her actions.

I suppose it's down to us in the trade to put pressure on the authorities to check.

Of course ringing up for a price is a good start.

That said I'm really not sure such iffy activities are that wide spread.

_________________
IDFIMH

The enforcement team need to be a bit more proactive, like ringing the pizza firm and telling them such activities are illegal, and do they wish to keep their late night license.

Or get the local press involved.

_________________
IDFIMH

Proactive??? They say it is ok for private hire vehicles to ply on taxi ranks.

_________________
Grandad,

A bit like all the hospital car schemes where the driver gets 45p a mile. If any of the LO's care to read up on the work done by Martin Allen and the substantial case law he has uncovered, they will find that each one of these schemes is illegal. The Glockner Ambulanz case does not define hire and reward, but it clarifies it to be for "any financial activity", far clearer than our wishy-washy "hire and reward", and that case goes on to say "irrespective of the status of the operator" whether it be not-for-profit, community transport, volunteer drivers or a multi-national plc.

Another case mentioned on here in the legal section is the MIB -v-someone whose name I forget which deemed that someone giving a workmate a regular lift for petrol money was doing so for hire an reward and his insurance was invalid; but that was after the passenger who paid for the lift was killed in an accident. maybe someone should mention that case to the insurers who encourage car sharing. No doubt CC will cite the case.