Taxi Driver Online :: View topic - What constitutes a wedding?

Weddings are exempt from licensing as we all know but just how far does this exemption go? When I asked at my licensing department I was told that it was only the actual wedding ceremony. But does it include the hen party or stag night? how about taking the bride and groom to the airport and fetching them back 2 weeks later?

According to the European Limousine News, providing the same car is used for all the events then you don't need a license.

According to the European Limousine News, providing the same car is used for all the events then you don't need a license.

The wording in my area hand book is "a vehicle used only for carrying passengers for hire or reward to, from or in connection with any wedding CEREMONY. So it is only the CEREMONY that is covered or is it? I have sent an email to David Farmer asking for clarification. :mrgreen:

I have sent an email to David Farmer asking for clarification. :mrgreen:

grandad wrote:

I can't dispute what is in your handbook, which I assume comes from the council. However the actual wording in the 1976 act is Nothing in this Part of this Act shall apply to a vehicle while it is being used in "connection" with a wedding.

I am afraid that is how a court of law will see it and not as is written in any handbook.

Regards

JD

JD wrote:

grandad wrote:

So from this would you concede that in all probability the operator of a stretched limousine being used for a stag night or hen party would not be prosecuted for not having a license. Note that I did not say that they were operating legally but they just would not be prosecuted.

I don't suppose that you would consider actually answering the question that I asked?
I can't act as a guinea pig for this because I am licensed.

grandad wrote:

I don't suppose that you would consider actually answering the question that I asked?
I can't act as a guinea pig for this because I am licensed.

I thought I did answer the question.

Anyone operating hire or reward as part of a business needs a license.

Regards

JD

Author:	grandad [ Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:48 pm ]
Post subject:	What constitutes a wedding?
Weddings are exempt from licensing as we all know but just how far does this exemption go? When I asked at my licensing department I was told that it was only the actual wedding ceremony. But does it include the hen party or stag night? how about taking the bride and groom to the airport and fetching them back 2 weeks later? According to the European Limousine News, providing the same car is used for all the events then you don't need a license.

Author:	gusmac [ Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:57 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: What constitutes a wedding?
grandad wrote: Weddings are exempt from licensing as we all know but just how far does this exemption go? When I asked at my licensing department I was told that it was only the actual wedding ceremony. But does it include the hen party or stag night? how about taking the bride and groom to the airport and fetching them back 2 weeks later? According to the European Limousine News, providing the same car is used for all the events then you don't need a license. I would have thought to and from the ceremony. Anything more would be pushing your luck.

Author:	grandad [ Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:04 pm ]
Post subject:
I have sent an email to the magazine stating my concern at the information but you can be sure that some company's will be trying it. Didn't JD get offered what he termed "an extended wedding contract" by one company?

Author:	Sussex [ Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:38 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: What constitutes a wedding?
grandad wrote: Weddings are exempt from licensing as we all know but just how far does this exemption go? When I asked at my licensing department I was told that it was only the actual wedding ceremony. But does it include the hen party or stag night? how about taking the bride and groom to the airport and fetching them back 2 weeks later? I think a court will take the view that a wedding car deals with an actual wedding ceremony i.e. to the church and back. Taking the bride and groom to the airport straight after the party, maybe, but not the next day. Hen and stag parties absolutely not.

Author:	Sussex [ Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:38 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: What constitutes a wedding?
grandad wrote: According to the European Limousine News, providing the same car is used for all the events then you don't need a license. Why does that not surprise me?

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

What constitutes a wedding? http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7940	Page 1 of 3

Author:	JD [ Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:42 am ]
Post subject:
No council as far as I'm aware, has ever prosecuted an unlicensed vehicle and driver for going beyond the bounds of what most of us would perceive as being a wedding ceremony. The actual law states. Nothing in this Part of this Act shall apply to a vehicle while it is being used in "connection" with a wedding. As per usual the law is unambiguous and once again the legislators have left it to the courts to determine what legally constitutes a wedding contract. It would have made it a whole lot easier if the Government had stated Nothing in this Part of this Act shall apply to a vehicle while it is being used in "connection" with a wedding "Ceremony". At least that way everyone would be aware that the law related only to the Wedding ceremony and not anything that goes before or after that event. The acid test inevitably will be decided in court but it's a bad state of affairs when practically every clause in every section of an act has to be determined by the judiciary. That's a failed piece of legislation as far as I'm concerned and both the 1976 and 1847 act fit into that category and to some extent the 1982 act. Regards JD

Author:	grandad [ Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:44 am ]
Post subject:
The wording in my area hand book is "a vehicle used only for carrying passengers for hire or reward to, from or in connection with any wedding CEREMONY. So it is only the CEREMONY that is covered or is it? I have sent an email to David Farmer asking for clarification.

Author:	JD [ Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:44 am ]
Post subject:
grandad wrote: The wording in my area hand book is "a vehicle used only for carrying passengers for hire or reward to, from or in connection with any wedding CEREMONY. So it is only the CEREMONY that is covered or is it? I have sent an email to David Farmer asking for clarification. I can't dispute what is in your handbook, which I assume comes from the council. However the actual wording in the 1976 act is Nothing in this Part of this Act shall apply to a vehicle while it is being used in "connection" with a wedding. I am afraid that is how a court of law will see it and not as is written in any handbook. Regards JD

Author:	JD [ Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:50 am ]
Post subject:
grandad wrote: I have sent an email to David Farmer asking for clarification. I'm pleased you have written to David Farmer but I suspect he will only advise you of the law as it is written and considering there is no case law on the subject then his advice will probably be very limited. However please let us know of his opinion as it is always welcome. Regards JD

Author:	grandad [ Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:18 am ]
Post subject:
JD wrote: grandad wrote: The wording in my area hand book is "a vehicle used only for carrying passengers for hire or reward to, from or in connection with any wedding CEREMONY. So it is only the CEREMONY that is covered or is it? I have sent an email to David Farmer asking for clarification. I can't dispute what is in your handbook, which I assume comes from the council. However the actual wording in the 1976 act is Nothing in this Part of this Act shall apply to a vehicle while it is being used in "connection" with a wedding. I am afraid that is how a court of law will see it and not as is written in any handbook. Regards JD So from this would you concede that in all probability the operator of a stretched limousine being used for a stag night or hen party would not be prosecuted for not having a license. Note that I did not say that they were operating legally but they just would not be prosecuted.

Author:	JD [ Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:10 am ]
Post subject:
grandad wrote: JD wrote: grandad wrote: The wording in my area hand book is "a vehicle used only for carrying passengers for hire or reward to, from or in connection with any wedding CEREMONY. So it is only the CEREMONY that is covered or is it? I have sent an email to David Farmer asking for clarification. I can't dispute what is in your handbook, which I assume comes from the council. However the actual wording in the 1976 act is Nothing in this Part of this Act shall apply to a vehicle while it is being used in "connection" with a wedding. I am afraid that is how a court of law will see it and not as is written in any handbook. Regards JD So from this would you concede that in all probability the operator of a stretched limousine being used for a stag night or hen party would not be prosecuted for not having a license. Note that I did not say that they were operating legally but they just would not be prosecuted. Anyone operating hire or reward as part of a business needs a license. The only time a license is not needed is in connection with a Wedding or a funeral. If you are suggesting a stag night is part of a wedding or a funeral then I would suspect a court of law may have a different opinion. Perhaps you are forgetting that under this act it is up to the person committing the alleged licensing offence to prove that they were entitled in law to operate unlicensed, just as they were in section 75 1b. If I was a judge and you came before me and said the stag night was part of the following days wedding ceremony then I would have great difficulty in drawing the same conclusion as yourself. However if a wedding contract included an evenings entertainment on the same day as the wedding then I might consider that the evenings entertainment was an extension of the actual wedding ceremony and one which came within the legislation as it is framed. On the other hand I may look for the mischief in the legislation and take the view that although the legislation is ambiguous parliament only intended the legislation to cover an immediate Wedding Ceremony and nothing else. In other words you would be at the mercy of the court and their interpretation of the mischief in the legislation. Why not act as a guinea pig then this issue might be done and dusted once and for all. Another potential loophole closed or perhaps the door left slightly ajar? Regards JD

Author:	grandad [ Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:05 pm ]
Post subject:
I don't suppose that you would consider actually answering the question that I asked? I can't act as a guinea pig for this because I am licensed.

Author:	gusmac [ Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:31 pm ]
Post subject:
Surely whether you get prosecuted or not would be down to the L.A. or cop who stop you, the cps and their take on the law. Conviction as JD stated is entirely in the hands of the court and how they see it.

Author:	JD [ Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:09 pm ]
Post subject:
grandad wrote: I don't suppose that you would consider actually answering the question that I asked? I can't act as a guinea pig for this because I am licensed. I thought I did answer the question. Anyone operating hire or reward as part of a business needs a license. Regards JD

Page 1 of 3	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	grandad [ Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:30 pm ]
Post subject:
JD wrote: grandad wrote: I don't suppose that you would consider actually answering the question that I asked? I can't act as a guinea pig for this because I am licensed. I thought I did answer the question. Anyone operating hire or reward as part of a business needs a license. Regards JD That was not the question that I asked though. I asked if you concede that in all probability the operator of a stretched limousine being used for a stag night or hen party would not be prosecuted for not having a license based on the wording of the act. Not if they needed a license.