Taxi Driver Online

Just surmising here, as we all know PH cannot legally pick up unless booked.
But what would the outcome be if a PH owner driver had public hire insurance given the fact that there is not a lot of difference in the price of both, and they where caught picking up
What would be the likely outcome
The scenario could be a hack driver in a saloon area decides to go PH but keeps his public hire insurance up

I doubt if a company could insure you to commit an illegal act.
In your scenario, has this driver informed his insurance of the change of licence? If not, the insurance would be invalid anyway.

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

You have to have a HACKNEY plate to get public hire insurance most insurers will ask for the vehicle license as proof of entitlement to the insurance

I'm private hire by the way. Looking at my insurance certificate is says (amongst other things - SDP, racing, trials etc...)

Limitations as to use:

Use for the carriage of passengers or hire and reward including use under the terms of a Private Hire Licence

Exclusions:

Use for the Carriage of Passengers for hire and reward under the terms of a Hackney Carriage Licence.


It appears you need to appropriate licence anyway, my insurance company also asks for a photocopy, before they give you a certificate, although they'll give you a temporary one lasting a month if you haven't got one sorted out yet.

It's similar to an ordinary driver getting private/public hire insurance, without submitting a copy of their private/public hire licence from an appropriate council, the insurance will be void.

How true this is I don't know but I shall tell you anyway. One of our drivers was caught picking up without a booking. It was one of our councils 'sample purchasers'. The long and short of it was the council were going to take this driver to court for not having insurance because he is PH. He's not going to court because when he read the small print of the policy he was indeed covererd for public hire. I know the driver is still driving and as I said the talk is he isn't going to court, the why he isn't going to court I don't know other than what I've been told.

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

But as I mentioned above, doesn't his insurance company need a copy of his public hire licence, he may not have one, since he's private hire only? His insurance may be void

Furthermore, my insurance company requires a copy of the vehicle licence, as well and this is going to be different for public and private hire.

My insurance company require all my docs too and I'm sure his did. Perhaps they just don't delete the inappropriate bit. The point is, if true, that driver did have appropriate insurance or least until a claim was made under those circumstances, then it may have been different. The company may have voided it due to the fact that the driver picked up without a booking, who knows? No such claim was ever made, but, I don't think they could take him to court and say he didn't have insurance if he did however dubious. I don't know to be certain I'm just relaying what I heard

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

I am not sure if this info will help

S143 Road Traffic Act 1988

This section deals with driving without insurance.

Whether a person is or is not insured is dictated by the terms of the existing cover provided to them by their insurers at the time of the incident. This ought to be expressly noted in the insurance policy, either by exclusion or inclusion.

Each policy is unique in a much as it corresponds to the facts and circumstances and risk relating to that particular policy holder. In every case where it may be that a person is driving without insurance then police would require to check their policy, if it is unclear from that document, then check with the insurance company themselves as to whether the person was covered for the activity they were carrying out, for example public or private hire.

It is important to note, that the existing cover at the time of the incident giving rise to the charge is what matters. Any indication from an insurance company that the person is not covered under the policy but that the insurance company is prepared to provide cover, or considers them selves “at risk” does not mean that a charge does not lie. It is the cover in place at the time of the incident leading to a charge that counts, not whether the insurance company is, at a date post incident, willing to make cover available.

Therefore if a person, a taxi driver or otherwise, is found to be driving without cover, then a charge will lie under s 143 regardless of whether an insurance company will in fact provide retrospective cover at a later date.

It should be noted that this is not related to the taxi licence conditions in any way. Breaching the licence condition does not negate the insurance policy and mean that a person is driving without insurance. It is the cover that dictates whether or not a person is driving without insurance.


Offences under Civic Government (S) Act 182.

The contravention of a licence condition is a matter for the Licensing Committee and distinct from the offences under s21 of the Civic Government (s) Act 1982 although on some circumstances it may also be an offence under s21. A person driving without cover would effectively be “operating as a taxi without a licence” in terms of s21 (1). That would be the charge in Scotland and would be charged in the usual manner. There is no charge in Scotland of illegally plying for hire.

On complaint by any person, or not, a Committee may suspend a licence if a condition of the licence has been contravened (or if any of the other matters in Schedule 1 para 11(2) apply). It is 11(2) (d) that is relevant here being when “a condition of the licence has been contravened”. The usual circumstances in relation to suspension apply.

The contravention of a licence condition itself does not have any direct effect on any policy of insurance and does not of itself have the effect of negating the insurance.






MUMFORD V HARDY (1956)

Appeal case.

This case relates to a person disqualified from holding a licence because of his age.

There was a policy of insurance in place for the car which provided that the vehicle was insured provided the driver held a valid licence and was not disqualified from driving. The youth was disqualified, being a person disqualified from holding a licence because of his age. Therefore there was no cover under the terms of the policy and the charge lay.

The case was referred back to the justices to convict.

Effectively the licence was void, that is had never existed therefore the cover under the policy was not triggered so the youth was driving without insurance.

This is a different notion however from the prospect of a licence condition voiding the insurance. The fact that there was no insurance meant that there was no cover in the first place. It was not the case that there was cover and the breach of licence invalidated that cover.


Singh v Solihull

Appeal by taxi driver against stated case against conviction for driving without insurance. He had a valid insurance certificate which excluded private hire. He argued that he had third party cover on the basis of an EU case Bernaldez, which required that coverage of compulsory polices to be absolute as far as third parties were concerned. Singh conceded no defence in domestic law and relied on Bernaldez and EU Directives.

The Appeal was dismissed.

The court held that the directives held no effect on criminal liability for a domestic offence.

The judgement relied upon Telford case.


Telford & Wrekin Borough Council

Local authority appealed by way of stated case after taxi drivers were acquitted by Magistrates of driving private hire vehicles without insurance.

Broadly the policies had exclusions on plying for hire. The insurance companies concerned however indicated that they would consider themselves on risk for that activity. Or to put it another way they were prepared to provide cover retrospectively.

The question for the court was “On the evidence was the court entitled to conclude that the drivers were insured at the time they plied for hire such that they did not contravene s143 of the Road Traffic act 1988.”

The court upheld the Appeal on the basis that:

• The cover provided was a matter of construction of the document
• The policy had to be considered and the offence was committed if the policy did not cover the risk even if it covered third party claims
• Even although the policy remained in force until avoided the risk itself was not covered.

If you look at a recent posting of mine I published details of drivers licensed in Sefton found guilty of illegally plying in Liverpool.

The majority were done for no insurance, some where not.

CC

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

Any idea why they weren't all done?

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

None, I wonder what their insurance stated?

CC

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

The likely outcome would be that his insurance would be invalidated, due to the obvious fact that he made a false declaration on his application form, when asked is your vehicle licenced for public hire?

_________________
Former taxi driver