Taxi Driver Online

Your talking about a wedding contract?

Stag night yes guilty,

wedding reception same night as wedding very debatable.

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 didn't ask if they were guilty. I asked if you thought that with the wording of the act they would actually get taken to court. It's a simple question that requires a simple answer either yes or no. There are no other answers that will answer the question either YES or NO.

_________________
Grandad,

It's up to the local licensing authority whether they are taken to court but if they are then I think it more than likely that they will be found guilty. Does that answer your question?

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.

NO

_________________
Grandad,

Yes or no depends on the LA. Some might others wouldn't

_________________

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

Sounds like they don't know there arse from there elbow.

_________________
Oi ! get back to work

I am well aware of this. I just wanted to know if JD thought that any of them would but a straight answer seems to be out of the question.

_________________
Grandad,

I can't tell you what a licensing authority might do, I can only tell you what I think a court of law might do. In the absence of case law I think I have set out the options fairly and squarely. I'm sorry I highlighted the possible anomaly now because I can see that it has your brain working overtime.

If there was a ready made solution to the anomaly then it would no longer be an anomaly. It doesn't matter what I think, the only thing that matters is what a court might think? If anyone wants to test the water in that respect then all they have to do is operate unlicensed in the guise that they are operating under a wedding contract. The problem is as I have already stated that it will be up to the operator to prove that they aren't operating illegally.

Its an interesting talking point and one which I suspect some might be interested in exploiting but I think there is very little mileage in it, in the long term.

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.

Whilst carrying out a "wedding ceremony" for certain religions, the actual "ceremony" can last for several days and include more than just two people standing at the alter/registra/etc.

So it might be feasable that a hen night, stag night, take to airport for honeymoon could be all linked, providing that at least one of the persons getting married was present on any of the relevant days. Wedding exemption DOES cover the taking of bridesmaids, mother of the bride etc to/from the "event".

It would be an interesting case if it ever made it to court

_________________
you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

Your quite right it would make an interesting case but I've always said that.

Bone fide weddings would probably have no problem with the law and I don't think anyone else would complain either, as the law stands. The problem arises when you get sham wedding contracts and the potential is there for such deception and that is why I first highlighted it.

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.

Response from the DfT.


David Farmer has asked me to thank you for, and reply to, your e-mail dated 12 February.

I should stress that it is not the role of the Department to interpret the law - that is a matter for the courts. Neither do we provide legal advice to individuals. Therefore, while the Department can provide a view on the issues you raised, this should not be regarded as a definitive statement of the law or as a substitute for independent legal advice.


Section 75(1)(cc) exempts a vehicle from private hire vehicle (PHV) licensing "while it is being used in connection with a wedding".

The Department takes the view that this exemption relates to the transport provision associated with the wedding ceremony itself. However, this is just our view; we would suggest that you seek independent legal advice about your own situation.

Pippa Brown

_________________
Grandad,

They couldn't have said anything else as I predicted. Now if the legislation had stated categorically that the vehicle can only be used for the purpose of carrying the wedding party to the wedding ceremony and back home then the law would have been quite clear but as it is, and as per usual, it is ambiguous.

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 departments view is a good starting point though isn't it. Could they, if they wanted to, put through an amendment to clarify the position? Or do government departments like to leave doors open to legal challenge?

_________________
Grandad,

No to the first bit, yes to the second bit.

_________________
IDFIMH

They just amended the 1976 act to remove the contract exemption so why couldn't they do something with this?

_________________
Grandad,