tomahawk
TF Newbie!
Posts:5
 |
| 22 Jan 2008 6:56 PM |
 Alert
|
Hi all - I was wondering if someone can shed a little light for me. My husband is a taxi driver working for an operator who is soon packing up. We are in the process of applying for our Picasso to become a private hire vehicle, the car is in my name and the no claims is in my name so I will be the operator - I have to use the car for personal use ie ferrying kids etc but I will not be driving it as private hire. I already work full time so no time for extra work! However on trying to get insurance
I seem to be banging my head against a brick wall trying to explain that I will not have a drivers badge as I will not be driving it as private hire. Is this scenario really so unusal? Any help will be appreciated - thanks all  |
|
|
|
|
Scottish Cabbie
TF Newbie!
Posts:4
|
| 24 Jan 2008 4:25 AM |
Alert
|
Unfortunately it's not all that uncommon...
As soon as insurance companies see that the vehicle is a taxi or a phv they seem to get all confused and don't know what to do, even if not all the drivers on the policy will be using it for business purposes...
My mate had the same problem with his car when his wife tried to get insured.. They did find a company who done it no hassles tho.. Will try to find out for you.. |
|
|
|
|
nickRP
TF Newbie!
Posts:2
|
| 24 Jan 2008 6:07 PM |
Alert
|
I work with an insurance broker that does a lot of taxi insurance and he thinks there's no problem. He ran through a number of different scenarios which they can check out for you but before they do they really wanted to clarify what you want.
The company is Metcalfe Insurance Services. You can check out their taxi insurance page, there's a form on there, you can fill that out and someone will call you back, or call free on 0800 594 4804 during office hours. Carl's probably the best person to speak with.
Hope that helps
|
|
|
|
|
NICK
TF MVP
Posts:242
|
| 25 Jan 2008 1:39 AM |
Alert
|
| Your problem is relatively simple... once your vehicle has been licensed as a private hire or hackney, then the only persons allowed to drive are licensed drivers and must be insured accordingly. |
|
|
|
|
NICK
TF MVP
Posts:242
|
| 25 Jan 2008 2:00 AM |
Alert
|
Peter Perkins Esq 76 MARSHAM STREET
Chairman LONDON
NATPHLEO SW1P 4DR
2643A Stratford Road DIRECT LINE: 020 7944 2291
Hockley Heath DIVISIONAL ENQUIRIES: 020 7944 2293
FAX: 020 7944 2279 SOLIHULL GTN CODE: 3533 2291
B94 5NH E-MAIL: e-mail: rupert_cope@detr.gsi.gov.uk
WEB SITE: www.detr.gov.uk
OUR REF: PT2 10/25/13
YOUR REF:
7 NOVEMBER 2000
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1976: ELIGIBILITY
TO DRIVE A PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE IN ENGLAND AND WALES OUTSIDE
LONDON
I refer to our conversation last week at Telford in which I said I would include you in the letters I
was sending out about eligibility to drive a private hire vehicle (PHV) in England and Wales
outside London.
The need for the letters was, of course, prompted by a parliamentary answer Keith Hill MP, the
Minister for Local Transport, gave to Jeffrey Ennis MP on 26 July. As you know, the matter stems
from a court case in 1997 which essentially stated that the only people who could drive licensed
PHVs in England and Wales outside London were those who held PHV driver licences. In the light
of this judgement, the Department carried out a consultation exercise to seek views on whether we
should make an order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to broaden the range
of people eligible to drive licensed PHVs. The conclusion that the Minister announced in July was
that only people conducting legally necessary tests, either of the vehicle or the driver, should be
eligible to drive licensed PHVs without themselves holding a PHV driver licence. For reasons
which are set out in the remainder of this letter, he concluded that a deregulation order was not
necessary for this purpose.
The decision took into account that an exemption for testing licensed taxis and would-be taxi
drivers is included in Schedule 7 to the Transport Act 1985 and that we consulted on the basis that
a deregulation order would be necessary to effect the options for change proposed. Against that
background, many have sought clarification of why the Minister reached this conclusion.
This letter sets out the Department's view of the law, but ultimately interpretation of the law is a
matter for the courts. If anyone is in doubt about whether or not they are entitled to drive a licensed
PHV in any particular circumstances, it is of course open to them to obtain their own legal advice.
There is no express statutory provision which exempts those carrying out legally necessary tests of,
or in, licensed PHVs from holding a PHV driver licence. But we consider that it is necessary to
look at the wider legal picture.
The 'MOT' testing scheme for motor vehicles other than goods vehicles is established under
sections 45 and 46 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. By section 47(1) of that Act a person who uses
on a road a motor vehicle to which the section applies will commit an offence if a test certificate
has not been issued within the appropriate period. The only way of obtaining an 'MOT' certificate
is by having the vehicle tested by someone who is authorised to do so.
Closely linked to this are sections 41 and 42 of the 1988 Act which make provision for the general
regulation of the construction and use of vehicles. The principal regulations are the Road Vehicles
(Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. Again, most people have to rely on motor mechanics to
ensure that they do not commit construction and use offences.
Almost inevitably in relation to an 'MOT' test, and in many instances in relation to motor vehicle
maintenance and repair, examiners or motor mechanics will need to road-test a vehicle. If they
were not able to do so in relation to PHVs, then they would probably be unable to carry out the test
or the work in the first place and the owners of the vehicles would find it difficult, if not
impossible, to comply with the statutory requirements.
Under sections 48 and 51 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, the
licensing authority is under a specific statutory obligation not to grant a PHV licence unless it is
satisfied that the vehicle is safe and in a suitable mechanical condition nor to grant a PHV driver's
licence unless it is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person. Inevitably, these
obligations will involve an element of testing, during which a person who does not hold a PHV
driver's licence will have to drive a licensed PHV. If this were not the case, then it would be
extremely difficult to comply with the obligations.
In relation to the examples set out above, the view that in no circumstances can a licensed PHV be
driven in a controlled district by a person who does not hold a PHV driver licence produces an
apparent conflict not only between different provisions in the same Act but also between different
provisions in different Acts. If such a conflict were to arise in practice, it would be a matter for a
court to resolve; but we take the view that, despite Schedule 7 to the Transport Act 1985 in relation
to taxis, it could never have been the intention that the strict interpretation should have the effect of
precluding the statutory testing and general maintenance of PHVs or of preventing a licensing
authority from complying with its statutory obligations. Such an interpretation would produce an
absurd result.
We are therefore of the view that should a court have to resolve such a conflict it would not find
that an offence had been committed where a person was driving a PHV in connection with the
testing of the vehicle for statutory purposes or for the purpose of work necessary to keep the
vehicle in good order. We take the same view in relation to the driving of a PHV in connection
with the performance of statutory obligations by a licensing authority.
The purpose of the order-making power contained in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act
1994 is to reduce or alleviate a burden imposed by legislation but, having come to the conclusion
that the existing legislation would not be interpreted so as to impose a burden in relation to
statutory testing procedures or the compliance with statutory obligations, it followed that no such
order was necessary.
When we next write to the chief executives of all taxi and PHV licensing authorities in England
and Wales on various taxi/PHV matters, we shall include a similar clarification of the Minister's
announcement.
R F COPE |
|
|
|
|
tomahawk
TF Newbie!
Posts:5
|
| 25 Jan 2008 7:54 AM |
Alert
|
Thanks everyone for your responses. I have decided it will be easier (and more legal of course!) to get myself a badge - which whilst it leaves me open to abuse from my husband if he's had a 'heavy night' the night before (ie Jules i have a headache can you do the school run today) - I will of course be legally entitled and insured to drive my own car!
This site is great - I'm sure I will learn a lot as time goes on, I hope you can all forgive my naivity on the 'why can't I go shopping in my own car i'm the legal owner for goodness sake' hormonal rant.
TTFN |
|
|
|
|
tomahawk
TF Newbie!
Posts:5
|
| 25 Jan 2008 8:02 AM |
Alert
|
| ps as a matter of interest I did actually find a broker who was willing to put the insurance in my husbands name and add me as a SDP driver - surely they are wrong to offer the service if the high court have ruled the practice as illegal!! |
|
|
|
|
tomahawk
TF Newbie!
Posts:5
|
| 25 Jan 2008 8:02 AM |
Alert
|
| ps as a matter of interest I did actually find a broker who was willing to put the insurance in my husbands name and add me as a SDP driver - surely they are wrong to offer the service if the high court have ruled the practice as illegal!! |
|
|
|
|
hopper
Norfolk "Nelson's County"
TF Almighty!
Posts:1210
|
| 25 Jan 2008 10:52 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By tomahawk on 25 Jan 2008 8:02 AM
ps as a matter of interest I did actually find a broker who was willing to put the insurance in my husbands name and add me as a SDP driver - surely they are wrong to offer the service if the high court have ruled the practice as illegal!!
You can say that again 
And welcome to the forum  |
|
Why don't you get a proper job??? |
|
|
tomahawk
TF Newbie!
Posts:5
|
| 26 Jan 2008 3:26 PM |
Alert
|
Thankyou Hopper! I do have a habit of repeating myself. 
No-one said it would be easy.  I booked my medical to apply for a badge - when I went along for it the doctors office had cancelled the appointment due to 'a problem with the paperwork' which was apparently nothing to do with what I had put and nothing to do with the surgery's admin, but was the councils problem. They said they will contact me next week. Ok - so when I left the surgery I rang the nice chap in the council licencing department who advised me that the surgery were questioning a section of the form regarding the DVLA Group 2 Vocational Licence Standard. Now he also told me that this is the same form that they have been using for years without a single query so why NOW?!?!?!! Why meeeeee.
I just want to drive my car!!.
|
|
|
|
|
GMB BRANCH SEC LONDON
TF Almighty!
Posts:1170
|
| 26 Jan 2008 8:58 PM |
Alert
|
Well of course were you a member of our union, problem solved, but as the genious Taxis would say best to be indipident [yes i know it should be independent] well now you know !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Would be willing to assist call 07958 275 339
ORGANISE EDUCATE AGITATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
NATIONAL ORGANISER GMB PDB |
|
|