Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Mon Apr 27, 2026 4:55 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
The big mistake the DfT made when removing section 75 1b was not removing the hire or reward element from wedding contracts and even funerals. The scam regarding wedding contracts has been highlighted by me on many occasions and is commonly abused.

Recently I was informed by a licensing officer that a person operating in their authority and who has been targeted on several occasions makes a very handsome living out of hiring out his vehicle to funeral services for the purpose of hire or reward.

There is a strong case for removing wedding contract exemptions for the purpose of hire or reward for profit and I propose the only exemption should be for those persons who do not perform such duties as part of a business.

Guernsey has a policy whereby anyone undertaking a wedding contract or any other type of hire or reward for payment must be licensed under their PSV rules, I believe the UK should operate the same system of licensing.

The following story highlights the illegal activity of a limo car hire and chauffeur drive operator who was caught red handed breaking the licensing rules and then tried to lie his way out of situation by saying he offered the vehicles for free and that he never accepted any money from the two parties who hired the vehicles and drivers.

The same system is operated here by many such companies yet they constantly fail to understand the meaning of hire or reward for profit whether that be as an agent or a supplier. This case albeit in Guernsey, is a fore runner to what is likely to happen if our enforcement officers ever take their finger out of their backside and prosecute these unlicensed operators.


The Guernsey Environment Department who are responsible for licensing, informed me that they intend to clamp down even further on these illegal activities.
_____________________________

http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2008/04/1 ... ctor-lied/

A DIRECTOR of a luxury car hire and chauffeur service could be sent to prison for lying to police to stop his company from being prosecuted for using unlicensed cars.

Malcolm Margo, who runs Guernsey Chauffeur Drive Ltd, denied attempting to pervert the course of justice and using public-service vehicles without a licence.

But he was found guilty in the Magistrate’s Court, where he was described as ‘a wholly unconvincing witness’ who had told ‘a pack of lies’.

Mr Margo said that he had sent handwritten credit notes to two couples who had booked cars for weddings to ensure that two unlicensed cars were not being used as public service vehicles.
___________________________

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57334
Location: 1066 Country
JD wrote:
Mr Margo said that he had sent handwritten credit notes to two couples who had booked cars for weddings to ensure that two unlicensed cars were not being used as public service vehicles.
___________________________

So he was/is telling the court he does work for free? :roll: :roll:

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 1:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
Sussex wrote:
JD wrote:
Mr Margo said that he had sent handwritten credit notes to two couples who had booked cars for weddings to ensure that two unlicensed cars were not being used as public service vehicles.
___________________________

So he was/is telling the court he does work for free? :roll: :roll:


He obviously couldn't convince the court that the two parties hired the vehicle and they brought their own drivers? We keep hearing from the schedule six fraternity that their operation is within the law, well here is one court that has a different opinion to their so called legal expert who advised them that what they are doing is lawful.

I don't think those who operate under schedule six need worry too much about being prosecuted because apart from Brighton no one really gives a chit.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 3:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 20130
JD wrote:
Sussex wrote:
JD wrote:
Mr Margo said that he had sent handwritten credit notes to two couples who had booked cars for weddings to ensure that two unlicensed cars were not being used as public service vehicles.
___________________________

So he was/is telling the court he does work for free? :roll: :roll:


He obviously couldn't convince the court that the two parties hired the vehicle and they brought their own drivers? We keep hearing from the schedule six fraternity that their operation is within the law, well here is one court that has a different opinion to their so called legal expert who advised them that what they are doing is lawful.
I don't think those who operate under schedule six need worry too much about being prosecuted because apart from Brighton no one really gives a chit.

Regards

JD


How on earth do you come to the conclusion that this was self drive hire? :?

_________________
Grandad,


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 3:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
grandad wrote:
JD wrote:
Sussex wrote:
JD wrote:
Mr Margo said that he had sent handwritten credit notes to two couples who had booked cars for weddings to ensure that two unlicensed cars were not being used as public service vehicles.
___________________________

So he was/is telling the court he does work for free? :roll: :roll:


He obviously couldn't convince the court that the two parties hired the vehicle and they brought their own drivers? We keep hearing from the schedule six fraternity that their operation is within the law, well here is one court that has a different opinion to their so called legal expert who advised them that what they are doing is lawful.
I don't think those who operate under schedule six need worry too much about being prosecuted because apart from Brighton no one really gives a chit.

Regards

JD


How on earth do you come to the conclusion that this was self drive hire? :?


The company doesn't operate self drive, the vehicles were unlicensed.

I was merely widening the debate lol.

Just for the record and for all concerned, the company in question doesn't operate self drive hire, it just operates some vehicles that are unlicensed.

Having said that I hope the director doesn't go to jail because I think the punishment should fit the crime and in this case I think jail would be a little harsh.

Any more comments on schedule six anyone?

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 350 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