Taxi Driver Online

Some People who don't read TDO might not be aware that illegal plying for hire invalidates their insurance. It doesn't matter what vehicle you are driving at the time if you commit the offence of illegal plying for hire you can be prosecuted for invalidating your insurance.

This case highlights the validity of insurance under such circumstances.
________________________________

SINGH v SOLIHULL METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL (2007)

[2007] EWHC 552 (Admin)

QBD (Admin) (Collins J) 26/2/2007

ROAD TRAFFIC - CRIMINAL LAW - EUROPEAN UNION - INSURANCE - LOCAL GOVERNMENT

DEFENCES : DIRECTIVES : DRIVING WITHOUT INSURANCE : PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES : THIRD PARTY INSURANCE : DIRECTIVES PROVIDING PROTECTION TO VICTIMS OF ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS : EFFECT ON CRIMINAL LIABILITY : s.143 ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988 : DIRECTIVE 90/232 1990 : s.45 TOWN POLICE CLAUSES ACT 1847 : DIRECTIVE 84/5 1983 : COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 72/166 1972

Directive 72/166, Directive 84/5 and Directive 90/232 did not affect criminal liability for an offence of driving without insurance contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.143.

The appellant driver (S) of a licensed private hire vehicle appealed by way of case stated against his conviction for driving without insurance. Two trading standards officers from the respondent local authority had publicly hired S to take them to a destination for a fee. S was charged with plying for hire contrary to the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 s.45 and driving without insurance contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.143. S had a valid insurance policy but it specifically excluded public hire. At trial, S asserted that as far as the offence under s.143 was concerned he had at all material times insurance for third party risks because the case of Criminal Proceedings against Bernaldez (C129/94) (1996) All ER (EC) 741 required the coverage of compulsory policies of insurance to be absolute as far as third parties were concerned. The district judge rejected that argument.

The question posed for the opinion of the High Court was whether, having convicted S of plying for hire, the judge was correct in law to convict him of driving without insurance and to reject the argument that Bernaldez was binding authority for the submission that S was at all material times insured for third party risks. S contended that, whilst he had no defence in domestic law, because s.143 of the 1988 Act had to be read in conjunction with Directive 72/166, Directive 84/5 and Directive 90/232, and in particular the case of Bernaldez, his insurance could not be annulled by an act of plying for hire that was in breach of a private hire licence.

HELD: The Directives in question did not have an effect on criminal liability for a domestic offence. The purpose of the Directives was to ensure that potential victims of road traffic accidents would be entitled to be provided for either by the insurer of a driver's policy or, if a driver was not insured, by the Motor Insurers' Bureau. The Directives had nothing to do with any possible criminal liability of drivers who did not comply with the policies of insurance which they had, Telford and Wrekin BC v Ahmed (2006) EWHC 1748 (Admin) applied, Clarke v Kato (1998) 1 WLR 1647, Silverton v Goodall (1997) PIQR P451 and Bernaldez considered.

Appeal dismissed

For European Court of Justice case cited above see Criminal Proceedings against Ruiz Bernaldez (C-129/94) (1996) All ER (EC) 741

Counsel:
For the appellant: C Gibbons
For the respondent: T Watkin

Solicitors:
For the appellant: Mushtaq & Co (Birmingham)
For the respondent: Local authority solicitor

So this means anyone picking up passengers in breach of their licence conditions is definately driving without insurance?

_________________

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

If you don't have public hire insurance and you are charged with the two offences of illegally plying for hire and driving without public hire insurance and convicted, then there is no defence.

At this moment in time.

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.

But their customers are insured.

_________________
IDFIMH

I think the position is that it's such a fundamental breach of the licensing rules that it renders the policy invalid?

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

I do not think that's the case but i wish it was

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/552.html

"Having convicted the Defendant, Mr Mangal Singh, a licensed private hire driver, of plying for hire contrary to section 45 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1947 on the 22nd July 2005 in Solihull was the learned District Judge correct in law in convicting the Defendant of driving without insurance contrary to Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and rejecting the argument that the case of Ruiz Bernaldez is binding authority for the submission that the Defendant was at all material times insured for third party risks."

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

Cheers CC maybe its because there is no offence of plying for hire in Scotland that we are still having difficulty