Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sat Apr 04, 2026 12:36 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2026 10:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 18359
https://www.ashford.gov.uk/news/latest- ... e-smarden/

A quick skim suggests the more recent council news release is just the same text as supplied to the local press earlier in the week, but now aimed at a wider audience.

So, to that extent, it doesn't really explain why precisely the 'free' taxi requires licensing. It just states that, in the context of licensable activities, the vehicle requires licensing as private hire, but doesn't outline more precisely why.

And, indeed, it would be instructive to ask those press and TV commentators if they would support, say, those 'fake' drivers trawling the streets looking for intoxicated women at 4am on the basis that they're offering a *free* ride home? :-o

Or, for example, what their view would be if there was an accident involving the free pub taxi and insurers wouldn't pay out because it wasn't licensed and thus operating illegally?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2026 1:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 18359
Fairly predictable stuff from Katie Lam MP :?

She's been good on the grooming gang stuff etc (and is tipped by some as the next Mrs Thatcher :-o ), but this is maybe a tad ill-informed - for example, she seems to think the funeral/wedding car exemptions are up to the local council.

And distinguishes this from 'for-profit' taxi services, while of course the service is effectively 'for-profit', because he's doing it to bring in punters, as indeed her piece makes clear (and the charity thing is a total red herring in that regard).

A wee bit of a giveaway is often the term 'private car hire' rather than 'private hire car' which maybe displays scant appreciation of the relevant law.

But the biggest irony is in fact something I meant to mention a few months ago - she's listed as a member of the House of Commons TransComm, yet I haven't seen her in any of the evidence sessions. Given that she's successfully made a bit of an impact with the rape gangs, you'd have thought the taxi investigation would be right up her street [-(

https://committees.parliament.uk/commit ... embership/


OPINION: MP Katie Lam on Ashford council’s handling of taxi fundraiser at Flying Horse, Smarden

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/weald/news ... es-337128/

Last week, it was reported that The Flying Horse in Smarden had been told by Ashford council that it can no longer offer free rides home to its customers when they’ve had a drink, because it doesn’t have the right kind of licence.

Since November, the pub has offered customers a ride home in the landlord’s cab, asking nothing but an optional donation to the Motor Neurone Disease Association.

The idea came together after one of the pub’s own regulars was diagnosed with the disease.

Over the past few months, they’ve helped around 100 customers to get home safely, and raised £700 for the charity. It was a rare example of a win-win set-up.

Yet after an article published in KentOnline, Ashford council got in touch to tell The Flying Horse they can no longer run the scheme.

According to them, to offer that service, the pub needs a private car hire licence.

That’s despite the fact the pub makes no money out of this, is giving all of the proceeds to charity, and is only offering this service in order to allow people to access their services safely.

As the licensing authority, it’s up to Ashford council to decide who needs a licence, and under what conditions they can get one.

It’s hugely important that, when people are operating a for-profit taxi service, we know who they are and that they’re unlikely to pose a risk to the people that they’re driving around.

As we’ve seen in many of the horrific stories about grooming gangs across the country, taxi drivers can do real harm to people in vulnerable positions.

But in a statement they put out, they accepted there were already exemptions to the usual rules, for things like wedding cars and funeral cars.

Why not apply the same policy to charitable initiatives which benefit everybody? In this case, none of the same risks apply.

Unfortunately, as anybody that’s tried to run a business, set up a club, or host an event for the community will know, this is an attitude that we see everywhere.

Rules are so often applied without any sense of context or proportionality. Even when the motivation behind those rules is noble, the result is that win-win initiatives like this one get crushed.

The kind of community we enjoy in the Weald can’t be built with a one-size-fits-all approach, or by piling red tape on people who are trying to do the right thing.

It’s particularly galling when, far too often, local councils fail to enforce the rules against those who really are breaking the rules – in cases of fly-tipping, for example, or illegal encampments.

A system which punishes the fundamentally law-abiding while ignoring the law-breakers is a broken system.

We see this in so many areas of life today – whether that’s the police arresting people for posts that they make online, or the tax system, which takes money from the hardworking to pay for those who don’t work.

It’s time that we started rewarding people for doing the right thing, rather than smothering them with more rules.

If you, like me, think that this decision was ludicrous, then please consider donating to the Motor Neurone Disease Association yourself, or giving the Flying Horse a visit. It’s a fantastic pub.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2026 3:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:58 pm
Posts: 3563
Location: Plymouth
This comes up every so often on here.

At least 3 binding Court Cases have said it's a no.

St Albans D.C v Taylor.

Rout v Swallow Hotels

Can't remember the other off the top of my head.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2026 9:15 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:56 pm
Posts: 2553
Katie Lam MP who has been in the job for less than 2years should know better than voice an opinion in supporting someone who is breaking the law without researching the matter. Typical tory not unlike reform just get me in the papers regardless of what I say is incorrect.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2026 11:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2025 1:15 pm
Posts: 32
Maybe his lawyer should refer to the case of Rout-v-Swallow Hotels. Regarded by many in the bus industry as the test case for what is hre and reward operation. after all, would th pub andlord like it if a licenced taxi or ph driver offered punters free beer if they book a cab to drive a round for a while?

The outcome of Rout v Swallow was how was the vehicle paid for? Could someone walking along the street get in and use it for free? No. It was for restaurant users only. The "fare" was paid for out of the restaurant's takings. It was a bit more complicated as it involved psv licencing as well as ph/hc licencing. A bit like kebab delivery drivers giving kebab shop punters a ift home on a regular basis.

Link herehttps://app.croneri.co.uk/topics/de ... roduct=181 Those ruling have been used to demonstrate h&r in cars as well as psv's.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2026 12:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:47 pm
Posts: 20806
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
heathcote wrote:
Katie Lam MP who has been in the job for less than 2years should know better than voice an opinion in supporting someone who is breaking the law without researching the matter. Typical tory not unlike reform just get me in the papers regardless of what I say is incorrect.



also known as lotte loudmouth :lol:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2026 10:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2025 1:15 pm
Posts: 32
Albert-v-MIB is another one, where someone was giving a regular lift to someone at work and getting 'petrol money", was beyond "social kindness", sadly resulted in a fatality. Journey was deemed for hire and reward.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2026 11:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 18359
Roy the Bus wrote:
A bit like kebab delivery drivers giving kebab shop punters a ift home on a regular basis.

That's an excellent comparison, Roy =D>

A great analogy in any context, but particularly in view of Katie Lam's prominence as regards the grooming/rape gangs debate, and the centrality of taxis and takeaways to all of that.

And, for what it's worth, this is her latest article on the Government's grooming gang inquiry, published online today:


A grooming gang whitewash

https://thecritic.co.uk/a-grooming-gang-whitewash/

The Government’s grooming gangs inquiry risks becoming another exercise in evasion rather than truth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2026 11:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2025 1:15 pm
Posts: 32
What about the "pink ladies" case that was on here a few years ago, or was that the St.Albans case mentioned above? And again how about letting cab drivers giving free booze to save people going to the pub? No doubt the pub licencee would complain about that.

How many times do we read of food delivery drivers getting nicked for no insurance? There used to be one on the Romney Marsh who used to be well known for "giving lifts" from the kebab shop in his clapped-out Toyota with no tax, no insurance and probably no licence as well. I don't know what happened to him but he was reported to the local LO. I moved away from the area.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 960 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