Taxi Driver Online :: View topic - As of now section 75 1b is extinct

It is to be hoped that those not complying with the law fall foul of it sooner rather than later.

However I must advise that some legitimate professional companies are being given false and inaccurate advice regarding licensing .............. and I suspect that some councils may well end up in court facing appeals because of that bad advice.

The timescale of implimentation is also something that has not been given consideration. Publishing the January date of implimentation in November doesn't give sufficiant time for applications to be completed. Thank goodness some councils are now advising "chauffeur" companies that they need to now contact their licensing section and receive advice on how to ensure they fully comply.

It is to be hoped that those not complying with the law fall foul of it sooner rather than later.

However I must advise that some legitimate professional companies are being given false and inaccurate advice regarding licensing

.............. and I suspect that some councils may well end up in court facing appeals because of that bad advice.

The timescale of implimentation is also something that has not been given consideration. Publishing the January date of implimentation in November doesn't give sufficiant time for applications to be completed. Thank goodness some councils are now advising "chauffeur" companies that they need to now contact their licensing section and receive advice on how to ensure they fully comply.

Another point, the DfT made it public knowledge in Feb 2007 that Section 53 of the Act will be commenced in January 2008. Just where you get November 2007 from, is beyond me.

JD wrote:

Another point, the DfT made it public knowledge in Feb 2007 that Section 53 of the Act will be commenced in January 2008. Just where you get November 2007 from, is beyond me.

Post is a bit slow in the North East. :roll:

GA wrote:

It is to be hoped that those not complying with the law fall foul of it sooner rather than later.

There is no need for anyone to fall foul of the law. They know the requirements get licensed or don't drive. Simple solution.

Any person who takes a chance and drives an unlicensed vehicle is looking at six points on his license if that doesn't deter anyone from driving one of these vehicles then they deserve all they get.

Quote:

However I must advise that some legitimate professional companies are being given false and inaccurate advice regarding licensing

Such as and by whom?

Quote:

.............. and I suspect that some councils may well end up in court facing appeals because of that bad advice.

Clear as mud.

A council doesn't need to give out any advice. That's what solicitors are for. All a council need do is process an application for a private hire license. End of story.

Quote:

The legislation was passed in 2006 these limo operators were given more than 12 months grace to get licensed. You want to give them longer?

Another point, the DfT made it public knowledge in Feb 2007 that Section 53 of the Act will be commenced in January 2008. Just where you get November 2007 from, is beyond me.

Regards

JD

JD, I don't think the legislation was brought in just for limousines, It was brought in because of all the bogus taxi and private hire operations that were using the contract exemption. There are far more of them than limousine operators.

grandad wrote:

I know that and I do try and refer to "all vehicles" and not just "limousines" but the way Mr GA presented his argument it came across as if he was specifically talking about Limousines and that is what I responded to.

Regards

JD

So do we just congratulate ourselves on getting legitiamte companies licensed ............. and then think thats job done.

The airport chauffeur guys don't seem to have bothered yet!

Author:	JD [ Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:51 am ]
Post subject:	As of now section 75 1b is extinct
As of now section 75 1.B is extinct, except for the specified exclusions contained in section 75 relating to wedding and funeral hires. I have no doubt that many limo companies will formulate phony wedding contracts similar to the one I was offered by a certain limo operator in style Cheshire. On that particular occasion I was informed that the contract would be a wedding contract. It should be noted that "I wasn't asked" I was "informed". Does that make the proposed contract "bogus" or a sham? Well considering my enquiry for hire didn't mention the vehicle was being used in connection with a wedding then my initial thinking was that it was a shame? It will be interesting to see if this company do license their vehicles or indeed have already licensed their vehicles since I last made my enquiry. I think most people who operated under the 75.1B legislation will probably realise that they can't any longer and therefore I expect most of them will comply with the law. However it is going to be very interesting when unlicensed operators are taken to court and they argue they didn't need a license because they were operating under an extended wedding contract lol. For those who don't know what an extended wedding contract is, the contract is an extension of the actual wedding ceremony that includes a knees up in the evening. I suspect the court might will deem the legislation only amounts to people going to and from a wedding ceremony and not for the purpose of a knees up several hours later. A bogus contract would be one where there is no wedding such as in my case but for the purpose of trying to make the activity legal under section 75 then a bogus contract would be drawn up. I am really surprised at the DfT at leaving this gaping loophole in the law but as per usual if "Taxi Driver online" and a few select entities didn't highlight these failings then for the most part they remain undiscovered. Regards JD

Author:	Sussex [ Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:57 am ]
Post subject:
It's a new day, it's a new dawn. $\:D/$ $\:D/$ $\:D/$ $\:D/$ $\:D/$ $\:D/$ $\:D/$ $\:D/$ $\:D/$ $\:D/$ So to all those out there without a plate or disc on the back, watch out.

Author:	GA [ Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:24 pm ]
Post subject:
It is to be hoped that those not complying with the law fall foul of it sooner rather than later. However I must advise that some legitimate professional companies are being given false and inaccurate advice regarding licensing .............. and I suspect that some councils may well end up in court facing appeals because of that bad advice. The timescale of implimentation is also something that has not been given consideration. Publishing the January date of implimentation in November doesn't give sufficiant time for applications to be completed. Thank goodness some councils are now advising "chauffeur" companies that they need to now contact their licensing section and receive advice on how to ensure they fully comply. B. Lucky

Author:	grandad [ Mon Jan 28, 2008 8:14 pm ]
Post subject:
GA wrote: It is to be hoped that those not complying with the law fall foul of it sooner rather than later. However I must advise that some legitimate professional companies are being given false and inaccurate advice regarding licensing .............. and I suspect that some councils may well end up in court facing appeals because of that bad advice. The timescale of implimentation is also something that has not been given consideration. Publishing the January date of implimentation in November doesn't give sufficiant time for applications to be completed. Thank goodness some councils are now advising "chauffeur" companies that they need to now contact their licensing section and receive advice on how to ensure they fully comply. As I recall it was at least a year ago that the decision to end the contract exemption was announced. The original deadline was November 07 at the latest but this was extended until January 28th 08. As far as I am concerned there is no excuse for anyone to have not got this sorted by now.

Author:	JD [ Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:14 pm ]
Post subject:
GA wrote: It is to be hoped that those not complying with the law fall foul of it sooner rather than later. There is no need for anyone to fall foul of the law. They know the requirements get licensed or don't drive. Simple solution. Any person who takes a chance and drives an unlicensed vehicle is looking at six points on his license if that doesn't deter anyone from driving one of these vehicles then they deserve all they get. Quote: However I must advise that some legitimate professional companies are being given false and inaccurate advice regarding licensing Such as and by whom? Quote: .............. and I suspect that some councils may well end up in court facing appeals because of that bad advice. Clear as mud. A council doesn't need to give out any advice. That's what solicitors are for. All a council need do is process an application for a private hire license. End of story. Quote: The timescale of implimentation is also something that has not been given consideration. Publishing the January date of implimentation in November doesn't give sufficiant time for applications to be completed. Thank goodness some councils are now advising "chauffeur" companies that they need to now contact their licensing section and receive advice on how to ensure they fully comply. The legislation was passed in 2006 these limo operators were given more than 12 months grace to get licensed. You want to give them longer? Another point, the DfT made it public knowledge in Feb 2007 that Section 53 of the Act will be commenced in January 2008. Just where you get November 2007 from, is beyond me. Regards JD

Taxi Driver Online http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

As of now section 75 1b is extinct http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7801	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Sussex [ Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:06 pm ]
Post subject:
JD wrote: Another point, the DfT made it public knowledge in Feb 2007 that Section 53 of the Act will be commenced in January 2008. Just where you get November 2007 from, is beyond me. Post is a bit slow in the North East.

Author:	JD [ Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:12 pm ]
Post subject:
Sussex wrote: JD wrote: Another point, the DfT made it public knowledge in Feb 2007 that Section 53 of the Act will be commenced in January 2008. Just where you get November 2007 from, is beyond me. Post is a bit slow in the North East. I think the post is just one of many things that appears to be slow? Regards JD

Author:	dinkidoo [ Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:02 am ]
Post subject:
pink ladies still working today in warrington . LA say itd being delt with Lets hope

Author:	grandad [ Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:11 am ]
Post subject:
JD wrote: GA wrote: It is to be hoped that those not complying with the law fall foul of it sooner rather than later. There is no need for anyone to fall foul of the law. They know the requirements get licensed or don't drive. Simple solution. Any person who takes a chance and drives an unlicensed vehicle is looking at six points on his license if that doesn't deter anyone from driving one of these vehicles then they deserve all they get. Quote: However I must advise that some legitimate professional companies are being given false and inaccurate advice regarding licensing Such as and by whom? Quote: .............. and I suspect that some councils may well end up in court facing appeals because of that bad advice. Clear as mud. A council doesn't need to give out any advice. That's what solicitors are for. All a council need do is process an application for a private hire license. End of story. Quote: The timescale of implimentation is also something that has not been given consideration. Publishing the January date of implimentation in November doesn't give sufficiant time for applications to be completed. Thank goodness some councils are now advising "chauffeur" companies that they need to now contact their licensing section and receive advice on how to ensure they fully comply. The legislation was passed in 2006 these limo operators were given more than 12 months grace to get licensed. You want to give them longer? Another point, the DfT made it public knowledge in Feb 2007 that Section 53 of the Act will be commenced in January 2008. Just where you get November 2007 from, is beyond me. Regards JD JD, I don't think the legislation was brought in just for limousines, It was brought in because of all the bogus taxi and private hire operations that were using the contract exemption. There are far more of them than limousine operators.

Author:	JD [ Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:52 am ]
Post subject:
grandad wrote: JD, I don't think the legislation was brought in just for limousines, It was brought in because of all the bogus taxi and private hire operations that were using the contract exemption. There are far more of them than limousine operators. I know that and I do try and refer to "all vehicles" and not just "limousines" but the way Mr GA presented his argument it came across as if he was specifically talking about Limousines and that is what I responded to. Regards JD

Author:	GA [ Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:40 am ]
Post subject:
JD wrote: grandad wrote: JD, I don't think the legislation was brought in just for limousines, It was brought in because of all the bogus taxi and private hire operations that were using the contract exemption. There are far more of them than limousine operators. I know that and I do try and refer to "all vehicles" and not just "limousines" but the way Mr GA presented his argument it came across as if he was specifically talking about Limousines and that is what I responded to. Regards JD I specifically stated "chauffeur" companies JD. Some of which, because of the contracts they have, need to prove their fitness and propriety in order to comply with the conditions of contract. I'm not saying that such companies shouldn't need to be licensed, but it is sad that because they are registered businesses they are easily contactable and therefore are easy targets for the licensing departments ..................... even though they never go anywhere near what would be considered normal "taxi" work. At the moment I don't want to enter into detail on here, but I will PM you my mobile if your interested in greater detail. B. Lucky

Author:	GA [ Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:35 am ]
Post subject:
So do we just congratulate ourselves on getting legitiamte companies licensed ............. and then think thats job done. Or do we get onto local authorities about the services that lead to S75 being repealled in the first place. As normal the nuber of "news" stories have increased ........ is this just to get this topic off page 1 B. Lucky

Author:	Sussex [ Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:01 pm ]
Post subject:
GA wrote: So do we just congratulate ourselves on getting legitiamte companies licensed ............. and then think thats job done. No. But you can rest assured there are some folks out there who have got patient transport on their agenda, and council social services cars on their agenda. Oh, and Limos abusing PSV licensing on their agenda.

Author:	grandad [ Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:23 pm ]
Post subject:
The airport chauffeur guys don't seem to have bothered yet!

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Sussex [ Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:59 pm ]
Post subject:
grandad wrote: The airport chauffeur guys don't seem to have bothered yet! They will.