Can you believe this pish they have not even mentioned the other two cases that i sent telfod and solihull
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall")
This is what we are up against 
Tony
With regard to your queries in relation to motor insurance, research has been carried out and I have been advised as follows:
"In respect of ‘The Law of Motor Insurance’ by Robert Merkin Section 5-21, it would be necessary for the policy of insurance to contain a specific exclusion forbidding the use of the insured’s vehicle for an act such as ‘illegally plying for hire” to permit a prosecution in terms of Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act, 1988. After consultation with the insurer in the recent cases, they do not have such an exclusion in place and would provide insurance cover as previously described.
The stated case to which you refer has been reviewed; Mumford versus Hardy (1956). This particular case refers to the provision of motor insurance to a 15 year old boy who had lied about his age in order to obtain a driving licence. He was subsequently able to obtain a certificate of motor insurance on that basis. It was held that as he could not have legally obtained a driving licence, he could not therefore have lawfully obtained insurance. I submit that this judgement does not bear any relevance to the matter under discussion."
It is clear that on every occasion where an individual is found to be plying for hire we have a responsibility to check the specifics of the Insurance Policy to ensure that there is no exclusion in place. I have passed this on to the CABS officers and they will carry this out. If it is found that there is an exclusion in place then a report will be sent to the Procurator Fiscal.
I hope that this answers your queries in that regard