Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sun May 03, 2026 1:10 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2022 5:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 18538
Not clear how the firm came to be unlicensed. Says here it had been 'instructed to cease operating', suggesting either suspension or revocation.

But it also uses the term 'expired'. So maybe they were just told to 'cease operating' after the licence had expired. Or maybe 'expired' isn't wholly accurate in the legal sense :?

Anyways...


Taxi company which ‘put public at risk’ fined after operating illegally

https://www.cambstimes.co.uk/news/crime ... rt-8752590

A Cambridgeshire-based taxi company which “ignored warnings” has been fined for operating illegally with an expired private hire license.

Associated Taxis Ltd continued to accept bookings after being instructed to cease operating by Peterborough City Council in April 2021.

A company representative entered a guilty plea on behalf of the company to one offence of using vehicles as private hire vehicles without an appropriate licence at Huntingdon Magistrate’s Court.

The council took the decision to prosecute following an investigation undertaken by the licensing team in 2021.

They were able to gather evidence including CCTV footage and witness testimony that demonstrated Associated Taxis Ltd were continuing to use vehicles as private hire vehicles after their licence had expired.

As part of the investigation, a council officer was able to book and take a journey in a vehicle operated by Associated Taxis Ltd in June 2021.

Cllr Steve Allen, deputy leader and cabinet member for housing, culture and communities for Peterborough City Council said: “Associated Taxis Ltd ignored warnings from the licensing team and continued to operate without a licence; therefore putting the public at risk.

“This case should serve as a reminder that the council will not hesitate to take swift and robust action against any private hire operator intent on flouting the law.”

Associated Taxis Ltd was fined £660 and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £66 as well as the council’s costs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2022 5:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 18538
Cllr Steve Allen, deputy leader and cabinet member for housing, culture and communities for Peterborough City Council wrote:
“This case should serve as a reminder that the council will not hesitate to take swift and robust action against any private hire operator intent on flouting the law.”

You mean you'll pull out the stops when it suits, Mr Highfalutin-Job-Title :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2022 8:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57356
Location: 1066 Country
StuartW wrote:
Cllr Steve Allen, deputy leader and cabinet member for housing, culture and communities for Peterborough City Council wrote:
“This case should serve as a reminder that the council will not hesitate to take swift and robust action against any private hire operator intent on flouting the law.”

You mean you'll pull out the stops when it suits, Mr Highfalutin-Job-Title :roll:

These comments are simply compiled by the press office, and, more often than not, are never seen nor uttered by the person themselves.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2022 8:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57356
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
Not clear how the firm came to be unlicensed. Says here it had been 'instructed to cease operating', suggesting either suspension or revocation.

But it also uses the term 'expired'. So maybe they were just told to 'cease operating' after the licence had expired. Or maybe 'expired' isn't wholly accurate in the legal sense :?

Anyways

I suspect their ops license merely expired, and they couldn't be arsed, or couldn't afford to renew it.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2022 8:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:47 pm
Posts: 20863
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
Peterborough's oldest Ph firm is a company called Associated Adams. I wonder if this was a rogue outfit trying to intercept some of their trade ?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57356
Location: 1066 Country
Little bit more meat on the bone.

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/l ... c-23381885

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2022 6:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:47 pm
Posts: 20863
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
Sussex wrote:



it is associated Adams :shock: looks like they are the first victim of the Bolt, Uber onslaught

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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 798 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group