London Banter - View Single Post

rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk · April 25th 16, 02:26 PM posted to uk.transport.london

In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 25/04/2016 00:04, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 23/04/2016 20:16, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 22/04/2016 22:50, Mizter T wrote:

On 22/04/2016 20:05, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 19:12:08 on Fri, 22 Apr
2016, Mizter T remarked:

The complaint is they claim minicabs are plying for hire around St
Pancras and KX.

More specifically, uninsured minicabs.

Wrong, that's not the complaint.

Private hire cars (aka minicabs) are not allowed to ply for hire on
the streets, only taxis can do that.

I'd suggest that you'll find very few, if any, TfL-licensed but
uninsured minicabs out on the street in London - being uninsured
means they'll lose their licence.

Is that what happens in London? The view taken here is that a penalty
applied by the licensing authority should not be disproportionate to that
applied by the courts. So a license suspension of 1-3 months is more common
following a plying for hire conviction to allow the driver to ponder what he
needs to do to make himself a fit and proper person to be a hire car driver
again.

The lack of insurance is automatic (irrespective of any policy paid
for) if (or perhaps when) the driver of the pirate car plies for hire
by approaching or responding to would-be passengers in the street.

Not always so, actually. In a case I dealt with as a member of the
Cambridge licensing committee, one hire car driver caught plying for
hire was driving for a firm that also had hackneys so insured all its
vehicles for both plying for both uses. This is much more unlikely in
London where there isn't the cross-over in fleets that there s in
Cambridge.

It's not like the good old bad old days when anyone could be a
minicab driver in London, when undoubtedly a fair few weren't
properly insured.

If (ie, when) they ply for hire, they still aren't. They cannot be.

They can as I said above have insurance that covers plying for hire.
They are still guilty of other offences of course but tend to get
fewer points on their licences because the minimum for insurance
offences is six points.

Let's be clear: does the insurance company cover illegal, unlicensed,
criminal plying for hire (eg, by drivers with convictions for rape in
vehicles which do not satisfy the requirements for lawful plying for
hire)?

The mere fact that some broker has issued a cover note might mean
that a casual HORT1 stop by the police can be deflected. But it will
not necessarily mean that the passenger will be covered if his spine
is injured in a traffic accident.

In a case where drivers caught plying for hire were brought before
councillors for their licences to be considered at least one had not
been prosecuted for not having insurance on the grounds I gave. I can't
give you more details but the driver was operating for the largest local
operator. Decisions to prosecute are of course taken by the police and
CPS and not by councillors. The offences were disclosed in a joint
operation between the police and council licensing enforcement staff.

Dodgy decision.

The insurer would definitely have wriggled out of a claim by an
unlicensed taxi whose driver had plied for hire illegally. They would
have to do that in order to protect their underwriters. And that's
the (only) test.

You'll have to argue that with the CPS.

--
Colin Rosenstiel