Sussex wrote:
I would say both the driver and the operator, because both have (maybe) breached the law. A bit like the Limo prosecutions, where both driver and owner got done.
I wouldn't jump the gun on this one. People are assumming that an operator can't have any vehicles under 9 seats acting as a psv. I think it is wise to read subsection 3 of section 79A of section 265 of the 2000 Transport act. The official interpretation from the transport commission is very alarming indeed.
It has come to my attention that Excellent connections operating under Airportcarz Taxibus have recently submitted a time table to run a bus service from Manchester Airport to destinations in the Manchester area.
This service is to start from July 1st 2004. It is significant that July 1st was a Thursday.
It would apear that they may not have had a bus route or timetable previously registered, perhaps that is why action is being taken against Airportcarz in this instance. The interpretation by Vosa of the subsection 3 which I quoted, is all important.
Since the 2000 act became law in 2001 it has closed a loophole in the 1981 public passenger vehicles act but subsection 3 of section 265 sub 79A is ambigous and in my opinion is being wrongly interpreted by the traffic commison. Note that this interpretation is from their own department and not from the Government. Only a court case will determine the proper interpretation.
With regard to the relevence of the signage on these vehicles, in order to have them removed they are going to have to be taken to court. They are just displaying their trade name but the local council should have done something about this a long time ago.
Best wishes
JD
Login
Register
FAQ
