| Taxi Driver Online http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Liverpool HC illegal plying http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17116 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | captain cab [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 7:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Liverpool HC illegal plying |
Liverpool cab driver fined amid calls to respect South Sefton fare boundary HACKNEY cab driver Peter James Perez, 25, of Ellergreen Road, Norris Green, has pleaded guilty to two charges of illegally plying for hire for passengers in Sefton. He also admitted two charges of driving while uninsured to do so, due to him not being insured to carry passengers he had picked up outside Liverpool. He picked up fares on Rimrose Road, Bootle, at 2.45am and 3.10am on December 5. South Sefton magistrates imposed 12 penalty points on his licence, but decided not to ban him from driving. Instead, they fined him a total of £600, and ordered him to pay £295 costs to Sefton Council, which brought the prosecution, and a £15 victim surcharge. Last month the Herald reported how black cab drivers in Crosby were calling for Sefton Council to clamp down on rogue drivers illegally picking up fares in South Sefton. Richard Jarman, chairman of South Sefton Hackney Carriage Association, said: “In Crosby or Waterloo on a Friday and Saturday night, you only have to look around to see how many Liverpool cabs there are. “The economic situation of our drivers would improve immeasurably if the city cabs would respect the boundaries.” source: http://www.crosbyherald.co.uk/news/ |
|
| Author: | skippy41 [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 8:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Come on Liverpool council get your act together and start prosecuting sefton drivers there are that many you could have a field day Why dont they just get rid of the imaginary boundary's and let there be a free for all |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 8:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
skippy41 wrote: Come on Liverpool council get your act together and start prosecuting sefton drivers there are that many you could have a field day
Why dont they just get rid of the imaginary boundary's and let there be a free for all Because you dont know your way around liverpool 
and I think you'll find a good number of sefton hc drivers have been prosecuted by liverpool CC CC |
|
| Author: | toots [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 8:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: He also admitted two charges of driving while uninsured to do so, due to him not being insured to carry passengers he had picked up outside Liverpool.
I thought a lot of people were of the opinion that a taxi is insured regardless of where they got the passengers. Tis an eyeopener if nowt else |
|
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
toots wrote: Quote: He also admitted two charges of driving while uninsured to do so, due to him not being insured to carry passengers he had picked up outside Liverpool. I thought a lot of people were of the opinion that a taxi is insured regardless of where they got the passengers. Tis an eyeopener if nowt else Not insured to illegally ply for hire, just like PH are not insured to illegally ply for hire. But as soon as the illegality is ended, it's back to the status quo. |
|
| Author: | grandad [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
toots wrote: Quote: He also admitted two charges of driving while uninsured to do so, due to him not being insured to carry passengers he had picked up outside Liverpool. I thought a lot of people were of the opinion that a taxi is insured regardless of where they got the passengers. Tis an eyeopener if nowt else The passengers are insured but the driver and vehicle are not. |
|
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
grandad wrote: toots wrote: Quote: He also admitted two charges of driving while uninsured to do so, due to him not being insured to carry passengers he had picked up outside Liverpool. I thought a lot of people were of the opinion that a taxi is insured regardless of where they got the passengers. Tis an eyeopener if nowt else The passengers are insured but the driver and vehicle are not. You keep writing that and the Magistrates' Court keep saying something different!! I'm sure you're right and all the Magistrates' Courts up and down the country are all wrong!! |
|
| Author: | grandad [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Brummie Cabbie wrote: grandad wrote: toots wrote: Quote: He also admitted two charges of driving while uninsured to do so, due to him not being insured to carry passengers he had picked up outside Liverpool. I thought a lot of people were of the opinion that a taxi is insured regardless of where they got the passengers. Tis an eyeopener if nowt else The passengers are insured but the driver and vehicle are not. You keep writing that and the Magistrates' Court keep saying something different!! I'm sure you're right and all the Magistrates' Courts up and down the country are all wrong!! Show me one case where a passenger in a taxi or private hire vehicle that had been picked up illegally has not been able to make a claim against the vehicle insurance for any injury's sustained in an accident. |
|
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
grandad wrote: Brummie Cabbie wrote: grandad wrote: toots wrote: Quote: He also admitted two charges of driving while uninsured to do so, due to him not being insured to carry passengers he had picked up outside Liverpool. I thought a lot of people were of the opinion that a taxi is insured regardless of where they got the passengers. Tis an eyeopener if nowt else The passengers are insured but the driver and vehicle are not. You keep writing that and the Magistrates' Court keep saying something different!! I'm sure you're right and all the Magistrates' Courts up and down the country are all wrong!! Show me one case where a passenger in a taxi or private hire vehicle that had been picked up illegally has not been able to make a claim against the vehicle insurance for any injury's sustained in an accident. Show me an accident that has occurred after an illegal plying for hire pick-up where the passengers have sustained injuries? |
|
| Author: | toots [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Brummie Cabbie wrote: toots wrote: Quote: He also admitted two charges of driving while uninsured to do so, due to him not being insured to carry passengers he had picked up outside Liverpool. I thought a lot of people were of the opinion that a taxi is insured regardless of where they got the passengers. Tis an eyeopener if nowt else Not insured to illegally ply for hire, just like PH are not insured to illegally ply for hire. But as soon as the illegality is ended, it's back to the status quo. Is this not similar to the query MrT had the other week |
|
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
toots wrote: Brummie Cabbie wrote: toots wrote: Quote: He also admitted two charges of driving while uninsured to do so, due to him not being insured to carry passengers he had picked up outside Liverpool. I thought a lot of people were of the opinion that a taxi is insured regardless of where they got the passengers. Tis an eyeopener if nowt else Not insured to illegally ply for hire, just like PH are not insured to illegally ply for hire. But as soon as the illegality is ended, it's back to the status quo. Is this not similar to the query MrT had the other week Exactly!! And this is why the police in your area stopped crushing PH vehciles that were caught illegally plying for hire after doing two or three some years ago. Because once the illegal act ceases their insurance is valid again. |
|
| Author: | MR T [ Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
toots wrote: Brummie Cabbie wrote: toots wrote: Quote: He also admitted two charges of driving while uninsured to do so, due to him not being insured to carry passengers he had picked up outside Liverpool. I thought a lot of people were of the opinion that a taxi is insured regardless of where they got the passengers. Tis an eyeopener if nowt else Not insured to illegally ply for hire, just like PH are not insured to illegally ply for hire. But as soon as the illegality is ended, it's back to the status quo. Is this not similar to the query MrT had the other week |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Fri Jul 08, 2011 5:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
There is a difference between the driver not being insured if they pick up illegally, and those punters being insured if an accident/incident take place during that hiring. The punters are always covered, in the same way everyone is covered if they are injured by a non insured driver. |
|
| Author: | grandad [ Fri Jul 08, 2011 8:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Brummie Cabbie wrote: grandad wrote: Brummie Cabbie wrote: grandad wrote: toots wrote: Quote: He also admitted two charges of driving while uninsured to do so, due to him not being insured to carry passengers he had picked up outside Liverpool. I thought a lot of people were of the opinion that a taxi is insured regardless of where they got the passengers. Tis an eyeopener if nowt else The passengers are insured but the driver and vehicle are not. You keep writing that and the Magistrates' Court keep saying something different!! I'm sure you're right and all the Magistrates' Courts up and down the country are all wrong!! Show me one case where a passenger in a taxi or private hire vehicle that had been picked up illegally has not been able to make a claim against the vehicle insurance for any injury's sustained in an accident. Show me an accident that has occurred after an illegal plying for hire pick-up where the passengers have sustained injuries? The difference here is that if passengers have been injured in an accident in the circumstances I mention, then the insurance would pay out and no more would be heard so there would be no reference anywhere. If the passengers are injured and the insurance doesn't pay out, there would be a court case because the driver would be sued for the injuries. Are you also saying that if the driver of a taxi or private hire vehicle with an illegal pick up onboard hits another vehicle, the driver of the other vehicle will not be able to claim for the damage to his vehicle? |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Fri Jul 08, 2011 8:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Is it the insurance company that pays or the MIB ? CC |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|