Taxi Driver Online

a good source told me today that pink ladies have requested the council look at changing the licencing of drivers and allow the issue a restricted private hire licence to drivers the idea is to offer an alternative drivers test that does not test local knowlage as long as the licenced driver operates a sat nav system in there phv

That should be fun as we all know the problems that most sat nav systems have, still i dont think it will ever go through

_________________
Legal and proud

Loads a love from BERTIE !!

If the council allow a restricted PH driver's license for the pinkies, then they will have to do it for everyone.

That said there is an argument which says that PH shouldn't have a brief anyway. Don't agree with it, but I do find it hard to counter that view.

_________________
IDFIMH

SUSSEX WROTE
If the council allow a restricted PH driver's license for the pinkies, then they will have to do it for everyone.



This is indeed why i think it will never go through!!!

_________________
Legal and proud

Loads a love from BERTIE !!

Pink ladies prepared to operate unlicensed in Carlisle

Using the Pitts vs. Lewis Case and a section 75 exemption.

Each member is allocated a specific vehicle

Captain Cab

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

I think everyone should realise that the reference to section 75 in the Pitts case by the Liverpool Solicitor acting for Pink Ladies is a stab in the dark. He himself stated to me that it was uncharted territory and he was apprehensive about its success? Or words to that effect?

If Carlisle council decide to do nothing and allow Pink Ladies to operate under section 75.1 of the LGMPA then it will be left to other authorities to prosecute under sections 46.1 s48.1 and s80.1.

I personally hope that Carlisle do prosecute Pink Ladies if they run their private hire business on the lines of s75 but I have sympathy for any council who has to determine the rights and wrongs of this inventive proposal.

If Pink ladies are allowed to conduct their business in the way they propose then obviously they will try the same principal in every other area they are active or propose to become active? In my discussions with Pink Ladies I was informed they have proposals for another 200 hundred franchises throughout the UK so I don't think anyone should get complacent about this being a flash in the pan.

I have nothing against pink ladies operating as a business but what I am concerned about is the application of the law and the future consequences for the Taxi P/H industry. Admittedly no one knows what those consequences might be but it is in everyone's interest to know how the law stands on such contracts of hire.

Regards

JD

Many thanks for your comments JD.

Apparently, once you are a member of the ‘club’ you will be allocated a specific vehicle for the year. They contend this satisfies the requirements of the exemption from being licensed.

Under the terms of the franchise agreement they must purchase 7 vehicles, therefore in theory (and to ease the mathematics), if they have 700 members it equates to 100 members per vehicle.

As you will be aware, the practicalities of supplying a specific vehicle for a specific passenger are not a consideration of licensing, in other words if a company chooses to operate in this manner, provided they stick to the terms of the contract, they allegedly are operating within the confines of section 75. The only consideration of the licensing department is if the terms of the contract between the ‘Pink Ladies’ and the customer are not adhered to, which is obviously the incorrect vehicle being supplied.

I have been advised the solicitor is using Pitts vs. Lewis (copy attached), they seem to have gone through this case and made a contract up that allows the licensing law to be circumvented.

Obviously the practicalities of the operation are that it will be impossible to supply the correct vehicle to the correct customer 100% of the time. The ‘what, ‘if’ and ‘maybes’ include two or three customers requiring the same vehicle at the same time.

However, we should perhaps be weary of the Judges comments in Pitts vs. Lewis regarding spare or replacement vehicles, this may, depending upon the contract, provide another avenue for the operation to get around the designated vehicle rule.

There are also some uncharted waters here;

The Pitts vs. Lewis case made reference to vehicle, not vehicles. What would happen if the contract contained the details of each of the 7 vehicles?

Another method maybe (as previously stated) the spare car situation, from memory the Judge mentioned in the event of a breakdown, but also stated;

Having said that, I ought perhaps to indicate that the contract might be one which in certain circumstances enables the proprietor to supply another vehicle if, for example, the designated vehicle suffered an accident or other mishap which rendered it impossible to supply it. In those circumstances different considerations might arise.

Could the use of the word 'mishap' include a double booking for the same vehicle?

Additionally the contract could name a main vehicle, but also name 6 spares.

In the event of any prosecution the burden of proof will be upon the local authority, which in the case of ‘Pink Ladies’ may be difficult to prove.

In so far as I am concerned the ‘Pink Ladies’ have deliberately set out to ‘get around’ licensing laws, for no other reason than the high standards Carlisle City Council have in place for its licensed drivers, these would mean them having a certain degree of difficulty in recruiting staff.

The costs of the ‘Pink Ladies’ operation are estimated to be approximately £100K, the total licensing cost would be under £1K.

regards

Captain Cab

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

So that makes it ok to refuse an address that isn't listed on sat-nav then, which at the rate new houses are built here, makes it about 20%.The real reason is, they cant get drivers for the wage they pay because they're dragged everywhere because there's only a handfull of em to cover the whole town.
What will happen when a stranger comes in on a train and asks to go to an address not on sat-nav?
I cant see our LA giving in without a fight.

As Badeil and Skinner say;

It'll never work

It'll never work

_________________
IDFIMH

Well how wrong can you be!
It appears that it's being considered and looks like it'll be approved.

What next? No CRB if you promise not to pick up Kids?
It was spoken about by the LO on the coach to coventry afaik.

Well how wrong can you be!
It appears that it's being considered and looks like it'll be approved.

What next? No CRB if you promise not to pick up Kids?
It was spoken about by the LO on the coach to coventry afaik.

Some might ask are the women they want to employ that thick they can't learn a few streets ?

if drivers from the "pink" club are allowed to do only half off the test then will the LA give refunds to the drivers who failed there test on the routes 5 or 6 times and in warrington had to pay £20.00 each time for the retest. i think not . this is going backwards in the job again not forward . funny the've not asked for only one car test a year because they drive more lady like
still cant get my head around the evidance that have that confirms on there web site advert that proves they can be trusted more than me. most trades would ask them to prove this or be fined

looks like they, the Pink Ladies, have gone into another scam

http://www.pinkladiesmembers.co.uk/pink-legal.php

Is there no stopping these Pink ladies, i think we have all been duped, they obviously have more power than we give them credit for!!!!!!!!!!!

_________________
Legal and proud

Loads a love from BERTIE !!