Taxi Driver Online

This is a really bad situation and although I despise the concept of giving help to anyone who chooses not to be in a union the fact remains that this fellow may not have been asked if he wanted to join so it could be the case that it's not his fault he finds himself out on his own.

Iagree with Terry that efforts should be made on his behalf even if it won't entail legal advice. It can't, the member I reported on winning over five and a half thousand this week had paid his union subs all his life.

What if someone in a similar situation required the help of the union and couldn't obtain it because all the time and money was being spent on pursuing non members cases.

If a union solicitor f*cks a case up it is my contention that they should be taken to the cleaners for breach of contract, the same as a no win no fee parasite or anyone else who dumps on ordinary working people.

But imagine this if we had the resourses, which we would have if we all joined up we could retain solicitors who specialised in drivers being fleeced by the degenerate scum that infest the industry itself and it's fringes.

Back to the case of Stinky's mate, I have been through the same sort of hell as you brother and believe me your case touched a raw nerve and brought back horrific memories. Please give Terry a ring and see if he can do anything to help. Have you considered using the local press to expose this pile of sh*t so as other drivers stear clear.

Look this goes against the grain especially after what I've just said Stinky but if your mate does give Tel a ring and all else fails I know a lefty barrister who will sometimes caste an eye over things if it's for the cause.

BUT FOR CHRIST SAKE LADS ISN'T THIS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF WHY WE SHOULD ALL BE UNITED IN THE UNION.

I wonder how many drivers would take a passenger from say London to Glasgow and would accept not getting paid at the end. There are Two questions that I would like the answers to before forming an opinion, One. 12 weeks in the garage, and I take it the owner never paid a penny towards the bill,... Two. he is not in a position to arrange a bank loan, does this mean other people see him as a bad risk.......

the driver/owner and the taxi held by the garage

There was and always have been an agreement as over the last 9 years with the garage owner that he always gave time to pay, up to 60days as a general rule, this has been going on for years, he only used that garage

if the garage owner had let him take the taxi away, he would have been able to pay the bill of 3 grand in or around 8 weeks in full, but no the garage put him out of work

why didn't the garage owner say look can you pay me now for the parts and the labour later, so what do we have now
3000 grand taxi repairs, all through a p*ssing water pump collapsing/ or incorrect fitment of timing belt fitted months early by same garage.
1800 pounds storage fees + vat to be added, so far
7000 grand loss of school contracts by driver
4800 pounds paid out in renting another taxi, [estimated]
3000 pounds vehicle hp [6months]

now in come the solicitors, dread to think what they want as he already has engaged them, reckon its a few hundred quid and its stale mate locked with solicitors either side sending letters, still no county court summons

he is unable to get the origional documents from his solicitor, won't part with, [this is what he tells me, and has no duplicates], maybe now they want monies before they go further, I don't know, costs unknown

Listen in, up here just over Watford Gap the worlds a different place

The trade here is spilt that many ways, hard to believe, it just the fittest survive in this dog eat dog area

No one comes round and says, hey guys I think you would be better off/protected in a union

I am in the TGU, the reason I got this was to protect myself against motor offences and illness protection
I have been with them for a number of years but personally I think the sub branch is a load of crap, I have often rung up and explained something and being told, oh no we can't get involved with that you will have to sort that out yourself

On the other hand, my wife works in MOD [Ministry of Defence] and is in the GMB
I find that she gets instance responce and guidance on picking up the phone instead of like me with TGU only getting up to the telephone receptionist, telling me oh the person you want is on holiday,this is every time, how much hoilday do some of the TGU get

If the GMB contacts me privatley I am willing to study the documents what they have to offer re Pro drivers and may tranfer over

Glad to hear you say that Stinky Pete and if Terry has your details I am sure you will be sent the relevant documentation.

I agree with what a lot of people on here say and believe that a union should be run by it's members through effective functioning branches and that paid officials are there to provide a service.

That can only be done if people join up and get involved.

I have to put you right on one point though Pete the industry is just as split and divided down here, largley to thanks to ignorance and selfishness ( as you will no doubt notice from some of the idiotic comments made by some on this board from our neck of the woods).

We have just as many chisling thieves living off of the backs of the drivers down here as you have up there and that includes garages who stitch up the drivers the same way as your mate has been stitched up.

I do hope something can be done for your mate it just seems to go from bad to worse every time you put a post up. Get him to give Terry a call.

No sympathy or support from Mr T then. Why does that come as absolutly no suprise

The reason why I joined a union

well in 1991 as a cabby I was taking a New Zealand lady to a hotel one late summer evening

as we approached the road turning to the right to the hotel, cars parked both sides of the road I stopped to allow a sport car who was approaching me from ahead, the sport car stopped, a lady driver, I thought whats the problem you could get a tank past

the lady driver got out and came straight across to my drivers door and opened it, without me knowing what was going on, I tried to hold on to the door, I managed to shut the door and sped off to the hotel, thinking that was the end of it

no, wrong

a few weeks later I had a copper knocking on my door, telling me bring my docs down to the police stn, or I'll be arrested, for what I said, motoring offence the copper said, wot offence I said, don't know what your talking about

anyway later I was charged with driving without consideration and assualt
this went to court, I took a leading solicitor who specialised

got to court, could not find New Zealand witness, hotel kept no ledger

a photogragh was produced of someones leg which was black and blue, the so called lady driver [a nurse] had produced this photo in court, this was thrown out by the clerk of the court, so the charge of assualt was dropped

the driving without consideration went on, it was proved that I drove a taxi complete with PH stickers on the door [hey I was a Hackney, and the council at the time did not approve of hackney's having door stickers.

a witness who stopped took my details[reg number] on a piece of paper, the prosicuting solicitor wanted to know why I was going so slow in that street, it was explained that the passenger was unsure which hotel she was staying at etc etc, was my answer, no said the prosicuting solicitor you went out of your way to do it deliberatly

it was found that I deliberatly obstucted the said lady in her sports car

I was find 200 pounds plus cost me 400 quid solitors fees + 3 points p;us compensation to the said lady of 75 quid

it was found later that the people who gave the said lady my details was infact at the time of the said incident was working on night shift,
The solicitor said to me to apleal will cost around a grand, and he thought it was a fair case and judgement

the lady in question was the wife of a builder just gone bankrupt, after the case saw numerous swindles to which they was carrying out, the said lady died 6 years ago in her early forty's of an illness, I drank to that

so I joined a union

Good Luck Pete got to go now. Hope to speak to you next week

My mate has rung Terry, but he finds himself robbed left right and centre, he has had another meeting with his accountant and both he and his accountant now sees that the only way out is go bankrupt, his home is rented, he needs a fresh start even at his age

No sympathy or support from Mr T then. Why does that come as absolutly no suprise

Maybe it's because I have read what was written, normally garages that extend credit to the taxi trade are very good. so why was it refused, I have no doubt Pete has told it, as it was told to him..

stinky call me on 07958275339 i need your address to send mem forms if you want them.Would to love to talk and explain GMB benefits.Everyone be aware no win no fee solicitors invariably a scam will attempt to obtain article explaining in detail dangers of using them!We have sued them and won.
ORGANISE AGITATE EDUCATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

_________________
The views expressed by this contributor do not neccesarily reflect the policys of The GMB Nationally or of the GMB London Region.

Stinky if your mate is to go bankrupt, tell him to try and get a new car first, he could get one with no deposit.
If he does he can contact the finance company of the car that's in the garage and let them know where it is.
I would like to be a fly on the wall when they turn up and tow it away.
and he can still get his sign and meter back, tools of the trade and any other belongings.
I did this about 9 years ago when I took a totally bucked metro cab back to cab direct, I managed to get a Renault es pass with no deposit first

The first step by the person involved in this lien might be to write to the Garage proprietor asking for the return of his motor car. No doubt the Garage owner will refuse but it should be pointed out to the garage owner that he can't by law charge a storage fee for retaining the vehicle as a lien and therefore it would appear the only charge payable by him is the amount outstanding for the work undertaken for the repair based on the original agreement. My advice is as always to consult a solicitor who knows the law and by all means cite the cases I have mentioned below.

Here is the case law appertaining to storage of an item retained by lien.

I shall post the Lords cases referred to in MORRIS v BEACONSFIELD MOTORS that being Somes v British Empire Shipping Company Limited [1860] and China Pacific SA v Food Corporation of India [1982] AC 939. In which Lord Diplock stated the following at page 962:

"My Lords, the extent to which any possessory lien that a salvor would be entitled to exercise at common law is capable of surviving or is modified by provision of clauses 4 and 5 of Lloyds Open Form raises difficult and hitherto undecided questions of law into which in my view it is not necessary for the House to enter in the instant case, and it would be unwise for your Lordships to attempt to do so. The only reason why the cargo owner upon the failure of its main propositions sought by the subsidiary proposition to reach some tabula in naufragio juiciobile was in order to avail itself of the principle which it contended was laid down by this House in Somes v Directors of British Empire Shipping Company, to the effect that where a person entitled to a possessory lien over goods incurs expenses in maintaining possession of them, in the exercise of his right of lien, and preserving in the meantime their value as security for the owner's indebtedness to him, he cannot recover such expenses from the owner.

That case is in my view authority for the proposition that where a lienee remains in possession of goods in the exercise of his right of lien only, ( ie one who has refused a demand by the lienor for re-delivery of the goods with which, in the absence of the lien, the lienee would be under a legal obligation to comply) he cannot recover from the lienor loss or expenses incurred by him exclusively for his own benefit in maintaining his security as lienee and from which the lienor derives no benefit as owner of the goods. I would not seek to suggest that this authority has become out-dated for the proposition that it was then laid down, but I would deny that it is authority for anything more, and in particular for the further proposition that expenditure necessary for the preservation of the goods from deterioration upon which the owner does derive benefit is irrecoverable, where such expenditure is made by the bailee at that time before possession of the goods has been demanded of him by the owner and his only right to retain lawful possession of them thereafter rests upon his own election to continue in possession after such demand in the exercise of the rights of that lienee".
.................................................................

It might be advisable to have a look at the INTERFERENCE WITH GOODS) ACT 1977 in respect of retaining property. It would be ironic if there was relief in this act to sue for loss of earnings? lol

In respect of the car belonging to the finance company here is case law that might suggest even though the arangement was made with the keeper of the vehicle if the car belongs to the finance company then the garage must offer it up to the finance company because they are the rightful owners.
.............................................................................

Pendragon Plc v Walon Ltd

(QBD) Queen's Bench Division 5 May 2005

2005 EWHC 1082
2005 WL 1287502

Summary

Subject: Torts

Keywords: Conversion; Delivery up; Liens; Possession; Sale of goods; Title to goods

Catchphrases: conversion; title to goods; storage company's refusal to release cars to purchaser; consent of seller to release of cars; existence of lien

Abstract: Having bought 116 cars from a company (M) that was now in administration, the claimant (P) sought their delivery up by the defendant (W), that was storing them. M's administrators confirmed that title to the cars rested with P and consented to their immediate release. W denied that P could establish an immediate right to possession and argued that it was entitled to retain the cars as security for the debt owed to it by M for storage charges.

Summary: Held, giving judgment for P, that P had an immediate right to possession of all the cars and that, given the uncertainty surrounding the future of M, it was appropriate to order delivery up. The assertion of a lien over the cars by W was no more than speculative and, even if one existed, it could not defeat P's claim for immediate possession. Since the seller had consented to the release of the goods to P it was no longer open to W to argue that it held the goods to the order of the seller, so W was bound to acknowledge P's title to the cars. By deciding to retain possession as security for M's debt to it, W had effectively converted the cars to its own use.

Judge: Judge SP Grenfell

Counsel: For P: Richard Edwards. For W: Gerard McMeel

Solicitor: For P: Edwards Geldard. For W: Colin Armstrong

Legislation Cited

Sale of Goods Act 1979 s. 29
Sale of Goods Act 1979 s. 29(4)
Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 s. 1(a)
Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 s. 4
Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (SI 1998 3132) Part 25

From reading case law on the subject of unlawfull retention of goods it would appear that every person who believes they have a lien on goods or services cannot charge for storing the goods unless the goods need special preservation methods. Such as perishable items. It would also appear that every liener owes a duty of care to the owner of the goods for such time they are in the lieners possesion.

I've come to the conclusion that if the person in question payed the money owed for the vehicle repairs, then for every day the garage owner refused to return the vehicle, the owner could quite legaly charge the garage owner a daily rate equivelent to the hire of a replacement vehicle.

Regards

JD
........................................................

MBR Howells Ltd v Beames

(CA (Civ Div)) Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

16 November 1995

[1996] C.L.Y. 814

Summary

Subject: Civil procedure

Keywords: Liens; Payment into court

Catchphrases: Liens; car retained as a lien for repair work; owner undertook to make payment in; whether car should be returned.

Abstract: H appealed against the dismissal of his appeal against an order dismissing his application for summary judgment and awarding costs in the defendant's cause. The claim was for the return of H's car claimed by B as a lien for repair work in the sum of GBP 2,166. B conceded that H owned the car but the judge found that there was a triable issue in relation to ownership. H was prepared to pay the relevant sum into court.
Summary: Held, allowing the appeal, that (1) in accordance with the Rules of the Supreme Court Ord. 29 r. 6 when a party claimed a lien over property, the other party could undertake to make a payment into court as security, in return for the property. The question of ownership was not relevant to that situation as it concerned whether H owned the car personally or whether his company owned it. The judge ought to have ordered the return of the car and (2) B was ordered to pay H's costs for this appeal but the judge's costs order was made at his discretion and was not altered.

Judge: Swinton Thomas, L.J.; Sir Christopher Slade

Counsel: For MBRH: A Hill-Smith. For B: Not specified

Solicitor: For MBRH: Willians (Cheltenham)

I have given a copy of the Lien case what TDO produced on site to my mate, [he thanks you very much] who's taxi is Lien by a garage, things have changed over the last 24hrs, his accountant must have contacted his solicitor re going bust, his solicitor wishes to re see my taxi mate for interview re pushing the case forward, mmm. solicitor maybe got the wind up of not getting paid if he goes bust, this surely strenthens my mates case, and the solicitor was not aware, and he will be able to counter sue the garage I suspect

From my mate to TDO, thank you he says, he has no internet facility at the moment, I am trying my best to help the bloke, hey I hardly know him, only through sitting on the rank but he's a good person, but it hard, he don't tell me everything at once, its like extracting teeth, he keeps a lot to himself, I and other drivers have to extract bits and pieces and put 2 and 2 together to help him, cos nobody else will