Libellous taxi leaflet?

[Moosey]

That's about motor vehicle insurance, not passenger liability insurance.

 

 

Same thing - your motor insurance is your passenger insurance.

 

It's an argument I've seen loads on here, and the Council frequently try it. It's still wrong.

 

Mr Taxi driver acting against the terms of his license is the same as Mr Car Thief nicking a car, or Mr Disruptive Child, taking his dad's car.

 

All those things will invalidate insurance to the driver. None of the drivers would be covered. Any third party, be they on the road or passengers, are still covered by the insurance policy as that can't be voided against them.

 

The invalidation only has the effect that the insurers will pay out to third parties, but then seek to recover from the fault party, be it Mr Taxi Driver himself (who also can't claim for his vehicle damage), Mr Car Thief (leaving the owner to recover from his own insurance), or Mr Child (whose dad will be upset and annoyed, and likely out of pocket too).

 

Long story cut short - you can't invalidate cover for liability to third parties, following various European rulings and Article 75.

 

 

Here's an article and case report about it for you....

 

http://www.piblawg.co.uk/post/2011/07/05/Liability-of-Motor-Insurers-to-Innocent-Victims-of-Road-Traffic-Collisions.aspx

 

And the key paragraph...

 

"...the 1988 Act must be interpreted as requiring the user of a motor vehicle to be insured under a policy that satisfies the minimum requirements of the Directives and any exclusion clauses that purport to restrict the ability of the innocent third party victim to recover from the insurer should be construed as having no effect."

 

Effectively, if there's insurance, and you're a third party, you're covered, whether the car is stolen, used in breach of policy conditions or whatever.

[alchresearch]

If a company can't stand on it's own merits, the only thing left to do is to trash the competition.

[Cyclone]

When you say they invalidate insurance to the driver, but 3rd parties would still be covered.

In the case of theft, under who's policy would they still be covered. It's the driver that's insured, so if they aren't with the car, that car doesn't have invalidated insurance, it simply has no insurance.

 

This inability to invalidate 3rd party cover is specific to the RTA though right, not a general thing. If I had professional indemnity insurance for work, and I somehow invalidate it, it won't cover 3rd parties (this is not involving a car or vehicle, it's office work), right.

[Resident]

So whats the problem if it is libellous ? that's a private matter between the taxi companies involved and named. Sounds a good informative leaflet warning as to the dangers etc.

 

It's using a lie and false information to mislead you, the potential customer, into restricting your choice of taxi firm to the four that are listed. To me that's FRAUD

 

They're not just simply warning you about unlicenced taxis, they're suggesting that other legally licenced firms, which are licenced by another authority are not safe.

[Moosey]

When you say they invalidate insurance to the driver, but 3rd parties would still be covered.

In the case of theft, under who's policy would they still be covered. It's the driver that's insured, so if they aren't with the car, that car doesn't have invalidated insurance, it simply has no insurance.

 

This inability to invalidate 3rd party cover is specific to the RTA though right, not a general thing. If I had professional indemnity insurance for work, and I somehow invalidate it, it won't cover 3rd parties (this is not involving a car or vehicle, it's office work), right.

 

For professional indemnity, entirely right. Reason being, under the EU directives, third party insurance is compulsory for vehicles, and following the UK getting into quite a bit of bother for not following the EU rules, we now do (thanks to the MIB). This only applies to RTA's, at the moment. Expect new rules on employers liability shortly.

 

In a theft, if I stole your car and crashed it into Mrs Joyce Example, Mrs Example would claim from your insurance, and they would pay, even though you weren't in the car, and it was stolen. Your insurers then have a right to claim from Mr Steve Thief, if they want, and if he has any money.

[Taximark]

Anyone else had a strange leaflet through the door today?

 

I won't name the firms it mentions, but the text goes something like this:

 

ATTENTION!

TO ALL TAXI USERS

 

Please don't be fooled by ILLEGAL taxi companies like (taxi firm name) who are based in Rotherham.

 

These companies from out of the Sheffield area are NOT LICENSED by Sheffield City Council!

 

To make sure you get in the right taxi, please make check the vehicle is licensed by Sheffield City Council.

 

You can still pick up in other cities but not work form there and have offices there.

You can still pick up in different boroughs, towns and Cities but blatingly doing it on a boundary is illegal and running the office inside Sheffield on Rotherham plates is Illigal too.

 

DON'T put you or your family in DANGER!

 

Support your LOCAL taxi companies approved by Sheffield City Council.

 

(The leaflet then lists four Sheffield taxi firms, giving details of their tarrifs)

 

All cars and drivers licensed by Sheffield City Council are FULLY INSURED and CRB checked.

 

Thank you.

 

As far as I can tell, this leaflet is not an official Sheffield City Council leaflet. In fact, there are no clues on the thing about the identity of its producers.

 

I'm pretty sure it's libellous (which is why I haven't included any names).

 

Don't see a problem with that bit of info, in fact I'd say kudos to whoever printed it as it seems to be warning people of 'bogus' taxi firms operating in Sheffield on Rotherham plates like the ones currently in and around Meadowhall, I know the Council are investigating this.

[Cyclone]

If it names a company that is operating legally then would you see a problem with it?

[ODDBOTT]

Most private hire vehicles register in Wakefield or Derbyshire, Sheffield city council have this ridiculous rule on how old a car used for such services can be ( this does not take into account safety ) i think the limit in sheffield is 5yrs but i do not know for certain as im not a taxi driver. There is an N reg Toyota Corolla running round wakefield with taxi plates, everything in sheffield is Vectras ect.

[Cyclone]

I'd rather use a relatively new taxi than an old one.

[ODDBOTT]

I'd rather use a relatively new taxi than an old one.

 

Id rather catch a taxi in a area with different rules and save 1/3 to 1/2 on the price of the fare, imagine how much buying new and likely mechanically inferior car is costing the driver and think how this must affect what they need to charge to make a profit. Its not the age of the car that makes a taxi journey safe its the driver.