Sussex wrote:
I think it would be the plate holders reasonability not the badge holders.
Reason being is it would be the vehicle that got suspended, not the driver.
Well that sounds eminently reasonable, but I hedged my bets a bit having read the recent stuff about who might be liable for prosecution for operating a vehicle out-of-area. But couldn't be bothered looking up what it said about this matter.
However, had a look last night, and:
Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, section 14, wrote:
Signs on vehicles other than taxis.(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, there shall not be displayed on or in a private hire car any word, sign, notice, mark, illumination or other feature which may suggest that the vehicle is available for hire as a taxi.
(2) Subsection (1) above does not apply in relation to any licence plate or other thing issued by the licensing authority for the purpose of indicating that the vehicle to which it relates is a private hire car or in relation to any sign required by virtue of section 21 of the M1Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971.
(3) Any person who—
(a) drives a vehicle in respect of which subsection (1) is contravened; or
(b) causes or knowingly permits that subsection to be contravened in respect of any vehicle,
shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding [level 3 on the standard scale]. So I'm assuming 14(3)(a) is aimed at badgeholders, and 14(3)(b) aimed at plateholders.
In fact (b) might also cover a despatch office, so in theory Glasgo Cabs/Cars could also be committing an offence
Of course, kind of thing that's unlikely to be prosecuted, and licensing and/or police would just instruct them to do the necessary to comply with the provision.