Taxi Driver Online

The general cycle of events predict that the issue will ultimately end up in the court of appeal. I can't see the issue resting in the magistrates court, can you.

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.

Why not, if it is illegal then the magistrates will say so won't they.

_________________
Grandad,

Magistrates are the lowest court in the land this issue can only be decided by the highest court in the land. Thats rather obvious.

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.

Mags will only say if someone is guilty or innocent of an offence, they will never say what they believe is the law or what the law should be.

And quite rightly so.

_________________
IDFIMH

Well that's very noble, akin to a robber saying he is only going to stop robbing when they make it legal.

To me this shedule 6 lark/scam has too many holes in to make it anywhere near legal, and if, and when, the gov bring in some sort of licensing for large limos it will bear no resemblance to what is being used at present as an attempt of making something clearly illegal look legal.

Just because some large limo firms are getting away with conning a few VOSA buffoons doesn't mean it will ever be accepted by the DfT and ministers.

I'm glad a little clarity has come out in this thread about the scheduled 6 issue, and I'm quite sure some folks in the taxi/PH trade will be taking it up with the DfT and with ministers.

Large elements of the limo trade IMO have had a murky past, and some still have a murky present, but this shedule 6 lark/scam is not the way forward.

_________________
IDFIMH

For general consuption, Least we Forget.

Certificate of initial fitness.

A public service vehicle adapted to carry more than eight passengers must not be used on a road unless:

(1) an appointed examiner has issued a certificate of initial fitness that the prescribed conditions as to fitness are fulfilled in respect of the vehicle; or

(2) a certificate of type approval has been issued in respect of the vehicle; or

(3) there has been issued in respect of the vehicle a certificate of type approval of a kind which by virtue of regulations is to be treated as the equivalent of a certificate of initial fitness.

If a vehicle is used in contravention of the above provisions the operator of the vehicle is liable on summary conviction to a fine.
________________

Section 1 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 provides:

'(1) . . . in this Act "public service vehicle" means a motor vehicle (other than a tramcar) which -- (a) being a vehicle adapted to carry more than eight passengers, is used for carrying passengers for hire or reward . . . (5) For the purposes of this section . . . (a) a vehicle is to be treated as carrying passengers for hire or reward if payment is made for . . . the carrying of passengers, irrespective of the person to whom the payment is made . . . (c) a payment shall be treated as made for the carrying of a passenger if made in consideration of a person's being given a right to be carried, whether for one or more journeys and whether or not the right is exercised . . .'

Section 6(1) provides:

'A public service vehicle adapted to carry more than eight passengers shall not be used on a road unless . . . (c) there has been issued in respect of the vehicle a certificate . . . of a kind which by virtue of regulations is to be treated as the equivalent of a certificate of initial fitness.'

Section 12 [as amended by section 1(3) of, and paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to, the Transport Act 1985] provides:

'(1) A public service vehicle shall not be used on a road for carrying passengers for hire or reward except under a PSV operator's licence . . . (5) . . . if a vehicle is used in contravention of subsection (1) above, the operator of the vehicle shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine . . .'

Section 22 provides:

'(1) A person -- (a) shall not drive a public service vehicle on a road unless he is licensed for the purpose under this section . . . (9) . . . a person who contravenes subsection (1)(a) . . . above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine . . .' Section 82(1) provides:

'In this Act . . . "PSV operator's licence" means a PSV operator's licence granted under the provisions of Part 11 of this Act . . .'

Section 47 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides:

'(1) A person who uses on a road at anytime . . . a motor vehicle to which this section applies, and as respects which no test certificate has been issued within the appropriate period before that time, is guilty of an offence. In this section . . . the appropriate period" means a period of 12 months . . . (2) Subject to subsections (3) and (5) below, the motor vehicles to which this section applies at any time are -- (a) those first registered under the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 . . . not less than three years before that time . . . being . . . motor vehicles . . . which are required by regulations . . . to be submitted for a goods vehicle test. (3) As respects a vehicle being -- (a) a motor vehicle used for the carriage of passengers and with more than eight seats . . . subsection 2(a) above shall have effect as if for the period there mentioned there were substituted a period of one year.'

Section 143 [which is contained in Part VI of the Act] provides:

'(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act -- (a) a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act . . . (2) If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence . . .'
__________________

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

This surely is the point if the magistrates decide that someone is not guilty of an offence then that means the offence hasn't been committed. Therfore LEGAL.

In answer to JD, If you can't secure a conviction in the lowest court in the land then it must be legal.

Put both of these last posts from Sussex and JD together and the only thing that is obvious is that under the current law it must be legal. Sussex says the magistrates will not say what the law should be, this would suggest that the law would need changing to secure a conviction.
Therfore LEGAL.

The defence rests it's case.

_________________
Grandad,

With this lot of TAXI DRIVERS/PH mate i doubt it!!!! I put taxi drivers/ph in capital as this is a statement of fact, they are indeed taxi drivers/ph drivers, i therefore question why they are making such a big issue out of all this, i summise that they have nothing better to do and trade for them is obviously in a slack period so therefore giving them more time on their hands to pick holes in what everyone else does for a living, ie Pink ladies, ie Tuk Tuks, ie Limos and anyone else that wants to give these taxi folks a bit of competition, now lets just look through this forum for a while and you will clearly see i have a valid point here, live and let live i say, dont get me wrong im not saying i either advocate or condemn what some of these ops are using, but my general take is either let the powers that be deal with it, if indeed its illegal, or leave them alone to get on with their lives and trade

_________________
Legal and proud

Loads a love from BERTIE !!

Well competion's one thing, but it has to be FAIR surely?

I've been busy for a couple of days and have thus missed most of this thread, but the fundamental point that the defenders of the disputed scheme seem to miss is that while it may adhere to the letter of the law, it certainly doesn't comply with the spirit, which is that services of this type should have proper driver vetting and safety checks.

That was the problem with the Pink Ladies - they came up with a convoluted and inventive scheme to exploit a loophole in the legislation, and to that extent managed to operate without proper vetting and vehicle checks.

So the DfT closed the loophole - simple.

Clearly the limo sector is more complex, but this self-drive carry on is much the same as the Pink Ladies - a clever scheme dreamt up by lawyers to dry to defeat the ends of the legislation.

It's that simple.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

Oh if our judicial system was as simple as that we would have people running around in all sorts of unlicensed vehicles plying for hire and carrying on business for hire or reward in any way they want. I'm surprised at your comments because I really do think you are a little more intelligent than to advocate the lowest court in the land as the beginning and end of our judicial system.

Would you like me to list the numerous cases where the magistrate’s court has found to be in error of the law? I suppose that doesn't matter to you as long as the first verdict counts no matter how wrong in law it might be?

There is a reason for the higher courts calling the magistrates the lower courts or had you not realised?

Perhaps you limo guys can furnish us with some case law that backs up your argument in respect of unlicensed vehicles being allowed to carry passengers for hire and reward.

Rather than criticising Sussex and I for presenting the facts perhaps you should question the activities of some of the people in your own industry who flagrantly break the licensing laws?

It wasn't so long ago that every limo operator in the United Kingdom was breaking the law. I'll let you into a little secret in case you didn't realise, having a limousine and carrying on a business of hire or reward gives you no more right to break the law as a person with any other unlicensed vehicle carrying passengers for hire or reward. So before you guys buy limos for the purpose of hire or reward perhaps you should first consider whether or not there is law on the statute that allows you to do it?

Evidently there was no law on the statute that allowed you to conduct such a business, yet you still decided you were above the law and packed people into your vehicles regardless.

Now I rest my case.

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.

Not really.

If a bloke is caught by the police doing 150mph, then he has committed an offence.

But if the police-man puts down he was doing 160mph, then the police evidence is discounted, and as it's the only evidence of an offence the driver is found not guilty.

Both of us know that hundreds of illegal limo hirings happen weekly. They either don't charge seperate fares, they don't complete the 1976 opt-out contract forms properly or they take more punters than they should.

But if we took your view, then all the above would be legal cos none of the bad guys have been convicted.

_________________
IDFIMH

Because IMO it's a scam, and a scam that involves customer's safety.

_________________
IDFIMH

So there you have it absolute admission that they just dont like the competition

_________________
Legal and proud

Loads a love from BERTIE !!

I'm not sure the hummers will ever be competition for the taxi/PH trade. Hummer punters are most certainly not the type I want in my motor.

But what the hummer operators need to realise is that the law of the land applies to them. They have been very lucky that VOSA, in the main, are pretty much tooth-less when it comes to small PSVs.

But now the shedule 6 genie is out of the bottle, I'm quite sure taxi/PH unions and associations will be keeping their mates the ministers up-to-date on this scam.

_________________
IDFIMH

We have a Limo firm in Brighton that runs a fleet of cars and Hummers on a restricted Bus license. And a fireengine.

How can he run all his half a dozen vehicles on two orange badges?

Cab drivers have their faults. But at least we are licensed and have something to lose.

_________________
Unmet demand you're having a laugh