Taxi Driver Online

There lies the problem, we always said, "that anyone can operate properly as long as the business model conformed to the construction of self drive hire". Nothing has changed except for the fact that several people on here told them so many many moons ago so they really have no excuse and if this chap would have listened to us he would still have his lively-hood.

I doubt anything will change because there is an air of indiferrence to the law in this respect but I'm quite sure this ruling by the TC will send shockwaves through the unlicensed limo trade and perhaps make all licensing authorities sit up and think.

It would appear that these so called water tight contracts of unlicensed hire aren't so water tight after all.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

The only link I can find is a link to the local press story.

http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/g ... penalties/

_________________
IDFIMH

I'm going to give the unlicensed limo trade and all licensing officers throughout the country the benefit of my limited knowledge of the law and warn them to consider very carefully the sections I've highlighted in bold.

The so called Dry leasing contract that none of the unlicensed limo operators were willing to divulge but by all accounts were convinced was legally sound has been found wanting. Even some astute and knowledgeable limo operators who subscribe to TDO were convinced the these contracts were solid. However some of us had a different opinion.

The parts I've highlighted are of the utmost importance to all unlicensed limo operators and might I say even those who are licensed. The fact that these contracts have been exposed as a clumsy attempt at dry hiring is of no surprise to me because I hate to say it again but I told you so.

If limo operators don't understand and take onboard the importance of this "Dry Hiring" reference in terms of a boggus contract then they are extremely foolish.

I hope those who advocated this boggus hire contract aren't too brazen to eat a little humble pie and appologise to those who have followed their advice religously.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

I feel genuinely sorry for the obvious downturn in this couples fortunes but now the item is newsworthy I think a little background news leading up to the event is perhaps appropriate.

Here is one article from 2004 when the couple were experiencing happier times.
______________________________

This is Gwent

February 26, 2004

Stretch out in tons of luxury

FORGET stretch limos - one Gwent firm is offering a heavyweight alternative for a glitzy night out.

The custom-built £140 000 Hummer H2 which has joined the fleet of Undy-based company Go Stretch weighs in at four tons.

The 7ft-tall vehicle based on US military vehicles seats 18 and can reach 100 mph - but only does eight miles to the gallon.

Go Stretch owners Julie Demaret and husband Scott had the eight-foot wide vehicle shipped in from California last Friday.

Inside are pink and purple leather seats a mirrored ceiling a 12 000-watt audio system five flat screen televisions a DVD player and a PlayStation2.

Julie said: "We think it's the longest limo in the UK and it's certainly the only Hummer outside London.

"We have the normal limousines and we were looking for something different. When we heard about the Hummer we went straight for it. It all started when Arnold Schwarzenegger had his Hummer stretched and it has taken off since then.

"My husband Scott says it's not bad to drive but roundabouts and corners need a bit of navigation."
___________________________________________

This couple had their "o" license taken away, which sugests to me that they were NOT operating self drive.

_________________
Grandad,

Until we the read TC's ruling in full, or hear from Scott or Julie Demaret then we won't know the full circumstances. But one thing is certain boggus dry hire contracts have been thoroughly exposed regardless of whether the vehicle is licensed or not.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

We have folks with PH ops licenses that will lose them if they use unlicensed drivers and vehicles.

_________________
IDFIMH

If the vehicle was carrying passengers for hire or reward then it has be licensed. The vehicle obvioulsy belonged to the Demarets who were both licensed under the provisions of psv legislation. If they ran an unlicensed vehicle on the premis that it was under a contract of self drive then they might lose their license if they were ever brought before the traffic commissioner on a complaint of operating an unlicensed vehicle.

I'm sure at some stage the facts will come out but I wouldn't be surprised if they were charged with knowingly operating an unlicensed vehicle for the purpose of hire or reward and they tried to say it was operating under a contract of self drive hire.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

Unfortunatly they now live abroad.

_________________
Grandad,

Now that this Traffic Commissioner has shown the way in respect of boggus dry hiring contracts every operator who mixes licensed hire with unlicensed hire might expect a similiar fate? I suppose some will carry on regardless but others who value their license might not.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

Don't forget JD that under the self drive, there is no license to lose.

_________________
Grandad,

Yes we both realise that and VOSA and local licensing authorities are slow to act but I think this latest revocation might ignite an otherwise smouldering bonfire under the feet of those given the task of enforcement.

On the surface it looks like this couple were operating both unlicensed vehicles and drivers. If they had been prosecuted as well as going before the traffic Commissioner they would have really set the cat amongst the pigeons if found guilty.

I see it this way, tell me if I'm wrong.

They were operating under the self drive scam while at the same time supplying a driver under a bogus contract. They got lifted by Vosa and said the limo was self drive but were reported to the Traffic Commissioner who investigated and found their self drive contract to be nothing more than a ruse to try and circumvent the law.

The end result was that they couldn't defend the charges because despite their attempts to cover up the facts the case against them was overwhelming. Hence the revocation.

That puts into perspective the validity that those in authority choose to place on these bogus contracts. Is that about right?

It must be a body blow for the unlicensed limo trade to find that the first time one of these self drive contracts comes up for official scrutiny it fails miserably. Now why am I not surprised at that?

There is no doubt that you and the rest of the limos guys I've encountered on this forum are sensible people therefore I'm somewhat amazed that those who operate under the banner of "self drive" can't see the wood from the trees?

I've said it time and time again with respect to contracts it doesn't matter what you put in a contract because you can't go to a court of law, (or in this case the traffic Commissioner) and tell the judge what the terms of the contract amount to, it is the judge who will tell you what the contract amounts to based on to its application and what that application is meant to achieve.

It is obvious that those who have no licensing home are in desperate need of a safe harbour but listening to people offering false dawns by way of reassurance in claiming that these contracts are perfectly legal will undoubtedly cause them more harm than good.

Perhaps the unlicensed limo trade will finally get the picture the next time one of their group is lifted for operating unlicensed drivers and vehicles?

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

I don't know the full details myself JD but I would guess that there was no seperate contract for the driver from an outside agency. I think this is where some of the big limo suppliers fall down. If they don't follow the rules then they deserve to pay the consequenses.

_________________
Grandad,

surely HC too?....

maybe not BUT the courts can impose fines, and as technically the driver isnt insured for H&R (and PH drivers have been done when taking flag downs) why isnt the vehicle taken and crushed?...


for the life of me i cant understand why a car/limo taking £250 per hiring isnt worthy of doing it right, either HC/PHV or PCV test/badges