Taxi Driver Online

Date: 23/12/08

The Dilemna of Judith Quick

Always balanced and reasonable taxi driver online has discovered the wife of top cop Bob Quick assistant commissioner for the Metropolitan Police has for some considerable time been offering car hire services that require a “private hire operators license”. Aphrodite wedding services run by Judith Quick operates from Westerham in Kent and comes under the licensing jurisdiction of Sevenoaks district council. A spokesman for Mrs Quick told John Davies of Taxi Driver online “that as far as he is aware the only services so far offered by the company are those relating to wedding contracts but that would have to be confirmed by Mrs Quick”.

Judith Quick has an impressive portfolio of satisfied customers who have nothing but praise for the excellent service she provides under a contract of wedding hire. Wedding contracts do not require vehicles, drivers or operators to be licensed but the other services advertised by Aphrodite Wedding services do. Services such as special occasions, school proms, anniversaries, theatre trips, civil partnerships and executive hire, all of which require a license.

The only exemption from unlicensed hire or reward under current legislation is provided in section 75 of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions act 1976, which for the purpose of licensing exempts “Wedding and Funerals”.

John Riches licensing officer of Sevenoaks District Council was unavailable for comment but peripheral enquiries suggest no private hire licenses are held by Mrs Quick or anyone else associated with Aphrodite Wedding services.

The mere advertising of unlicensed services could be deemed unlawful under current legislation whereby the provider is making provision for the acceptance of bookings. The intent to offer unlicensed services by Aphrodite Wedding services is plain for all to see but one would hope Mrs Quick will at some stage clarify whether or not she has provided unlicensed services of the type offered on her website, if only to prevent further conjecture and innuendo.

John Davies

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

Hire or Reward Licensing issues are amongst the main priorities of this website but when a high profile licensing issue rears its head such as the one highlighted above then we have to give it the prominence it deserves.

Having said that Taxi Driver online has a duty to report the facts in a fair and balanced way and I hope that is what we have done in this case. Others may wish to speculate on the activities of Aphrodite Weddding services but at no time has it ever been confirmed that services other than wedding hire have ever been commisioned. The intent to provide other services is not disguissed but we have no evidence to suggest that such services were ever provided.

Unfavourable comments have been made in the press regarding the nature of the business carried out by Mrs Quick when considering the high profile occupation of her husband. I personally do not have a problem with the business activities of any individual and consider it none of my business. Therefore the matter for me solely concerned licensing.

Other people might view the issue differently but at least I feel satisfied that the presentation has been fair and balanced.

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.

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

It's my view that the advertising of the service on this website is in breach of the 1976 act i.e. illegal.

The site offers, as JD mentioned, the services of vehicles other than for funerals and weddings. Thus IMO their vehicles come under the 1976 act.

Section 80 of the 1976 act defines a Private Hire vehicle as;

means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to seat [fewer than nine passengers], other than a hackney carriage or public service vehicle [or a London cab] [or tramcar], which is provided for hire with the services of a driver for the purpose of carrying passengers;

Unless it can be shown that those vehicles are either hackney carriages or buses then they are Private Hire vehicles as defined by the act.

As we all know the only people allowed to give work to licensed Private Hire vehicles are licensed Private Hire operators, licensed in the same district.

The 1976 act defines 'to operate' as;

means in the course of business to make provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a private hire vehicle;

So IMO the website is inviting work and making provision. Sadly it would seem that the firm doesn't have the licenses to do that. Be they operator's, vehicles or drivers.

_________________
IDFIMH

I can't dissagree with what Susses says and I'm glad he pointed out the aspect of making provision.

I tried to balance the article knowing full well that other media enterprises are hot on the trail of this unlicensed issue and I fully expect something to break within the next 48 hours.

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.

Sevenoaks District Council

The Council's role in taxi licensing

The Council is responsible for licensing all hire vehicles which operate in Sevenoaks District and which are provided with a driver and operated with less than nine passenger seats.

http://www.sevenoaks.gov.uk/business/licensing/470.asp

I remember a rather nice policewoman (yes they hate being called that) once telling me that ignorance was no excuse....I wonder.

regards

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Just so im reading it right. Is one of the most senior coppers in the country married to the equivalent of an unlicensed taxi tout?

Or doesn't the law apply to the police?

_________________
Unmet demand you're having a laugh

I think they are many on here waiting to see the evidence that what you outline above is not the truth.

_________________
IDFIMH

Have they the media been provided with a link to TDO so they can follow the story?????????????

I suspect there are dozens of journalists googling away. If the person JD spoke to wasn't sure about the licensing status, I would imagine Fleet Street will be taking that as a not licensed when they delve into this story.

But I'm still perplexed how a senior officer wouldn't know about taxi/PH law, especially when The Mail says his dad was one of us.

I'm really waiting, and hoping, for this to come out as a misunderstanding.

_________________
IDFIMH

So if I marry a high ranking copper i can save on plate/badge fees and the 3 month wait for a CRB to come back?

I think to us it was more or less obvious that the operation was unlicensed, it just needed confirmation. However it was never admitted at any time that a single hire of an unlicensed nature ever took place. Therefore although one could highlight the fact there is no license in place for the services being offered in addition to the wedding services one couldn't really state without evidence that any of those services had been provided.

The person I spoke to was most helpful and he confirmed that before Judith Quick embarked on this venture she did indeed speak with the local licensing officer with regard to the issue of licensing.

I know for a fact the press is on to this licensing issue like a hot potato but it is alarming how little they know about Taxi licensing law.

Whether or not Judith Quick will make a statement regarding the matter we don't know but I personally think it will be in her best interest to do so before the press find a past customer who has availed themselves of an unlicensed service. There is also the records of hire to consider if the press clamour for the books to be opened then that could present major problems for Mrs Quick.

I wasn't going to go down that road but when fleet street get the bit between their teeth they can be a pretty mean bunch.

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.

That may have been the case prior to all the new licencing regulations who knows. TBH it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't know as they are a bugger to understand anyway. Obviously the basics are easy no hire and reward without a licence but I suppose some people may think that only applies to taxis. As some say ignorance is no form of defence but I hate the way the press publish without all the facts first it's irratating. At least the folks on TDO have tried to ascertain the truth and have commented accordingly

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

Up until January 28th 2008 anyone operating without a license could undertake hires on the basis of the 7 day contract exemption and get away with the license requirement. The unlicensed problem arises for Mrs Quick after January 28 when the 7 day exemption was removed. That is what she has to contemplate.

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.

It surely also depends upon what the licensing authority advised her to do?

regards

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin