Taxi advice

CKhalvashi

coolcait wrote: »

If someone is worried that they may have witnessed a fraudulent act - or that they risk being dragged into a fraudulent act - then they should report the facts that they know to the relevant authority.

Legally speaking, if I don't check and it comes to light at a later date, I've technically assisted in fraud (I say technically, as we're supplying work to a bankrupt, which is undisputed, so a car of which the status is disputed between him and the OR). I'm not aware of insolvency law, however I don't believe it's reasonable for a bankrupt to be driving around in an expensive car, especially when had we supplied a company car on a 50/50 earnings split, he could have worked without this.

Also, why should I have my savings rates lowered, and my business debt interest increased due to someone 'playing' the system. It's unfair to all of us, when there are potentially vehicles £10k (dealer price) cheaper, that could satisfy the same role for 3 years he's paying in.

As mentioned, I have every sympathy for those going through the bankruptcy process, and regularly assist with court visits and forms for local residents, however I refuse to see a system that I agree with when used properly, used fraudulently.

CK

alastairq

coolcait wrote: »

But isn't that for the OR to investigate?

If someone is worried that they may have witnessed a fraudulent act - or that they risk being dragged into a fraudulent act - then they should report the facts that they know to the relevant authority.

For example, that an individual is the registered keeper of car 'x' - giving details of the type of car, how old it is, mileage etc.

It is then for the relevant authority to investigate (or not) to the extent needed. Which may or may not be to the extent of 'indisputable fact', or 'beyond reasonable doubt'. 'Balance of probabilities' might be enough.

The 'presumption' again?

Perhaps the OR has already 'investigated?'

The topic of actual vehicle ownership [as distinct from being a Registered Keeper?] has already been covered on this forum.

Why is there a presumption that, because someone is BR, [and folk do have preconceptions about BR, what it it, or what it should be]....the appearance of, in this case, a fairly new car automatically means some sort of fiddle is being conducted?


It is also entirely possible the OR won't 'know ' about this new vehicle, simply because the BR person is fully aware [and no doubt can prove?] they are not the owner, therefore it is not an asset in BR.



The question boils down to the point of...''how dare a BR get away with an apparent fiddle?''

ANd my view, of ''how dare an assumption be made that, because a person is BR, they must be on a fiddle!''


I, personally, would take offence to the point of legal proceedings, if available, if someone started making unfounded assumptions that I was 'fiddling' simply because, during my BR, I also owned, three completely roadworthy and road legal vehicles!

Flm67

alastairq wrote: »

The 'presumption' again?

Perhaps the OR has already 'investigated?'

The topic of actual vehicle ownership [as distinct from being a Registered Keeper?] has already been covered on this forum.

Why is there a presumption that, because someone is BR, [and folk do have preconceptions about BR, what it it, or what it should be]....the appearance of, in this case, a fairly new car automatically means some sort of fiddle is being conducted?


It is also entirely possible the OR won't 'know ' about this new vehicle, simply because the BR person is fully aware [and no doubt can prove?] they are not the owner, therefore it is not an asset in BR.



The question boils down to the point of...''how dare a BR get away with an apparent fiddle?''

ANd my view, of ''how dare an assumption be made that, because a person is BR, they must be on a fiddle!''


I, personally, would take offence to the point of legal proceedings, if available, if someone started making unfounded assumptions that I was 'fiddling' simply because, during my BR, I also owned, three completely roadworthy and road legal vehicles!

Couldn't have put it better myself!

Anondebtadvisor

The assumption here seems to be that as he is a bankrupt he must be a criminal......

Being a bankrupt and being in debt is not a crime

Grumpy_Shunter

I'm BR, I'm also a psychotic local axe murderer. Do you want my OR's number?

Brock_and_Roll

The OP appears to have been acting entirely reasonably in his actions and his posts on here. He is running a business and as such is responsible for his employees and his customers.

Furthermore, it is our right, indeed our duty to discretly report suspicions of bankrupcy, benefit or indeed any type of fraud or crime to the relevant authorities. It is then up to the authorities to decide whether or not to look into it which if they do will be via the appropriate proceedures. The driver, if he has done nothing wrong has absolutely nothing to fear.

Flyright

I very much agree, the original poster doesn't deserve the sarcastic replies. The OR will always want to know about potentially undisclosed assets and it's up to the OR to investigate such matters, whether it ends up as a non-issue or otherwise.

rossireps

Grumpy_Shunter wrote: »

I'm BR, I'm also a psychotic local axe murderer. Do you want my OR's number?

Your not even close,try no job internet,sky and a vehicle. ha ha

CKhalvashi

Anondebtadvisor wrote: »

The assumption here seems to be that as he is a bankrupt he must be a criminal......

Being a bankrupt and being in debt is not a crime

I never said this was the case.

I mentioned that something regarding the situation of someone I've known for a long time doesn't add up, and when this can potentially affect my business, I need to be 100% clear on the facts before I am able to consider signing a contract with the individual in question.

I wasn't the tiniest bit suspicious, despite having known that the vehicle had been in the drivers possession for the previous 2 months he'd had it, until a V5 document was placed into my hands, along with the license needed to own the vehicle as a taxi.

With our company fleet, the vehicle is in the company name, and the same in the case with the taxi hire firms. The driver lives in a town that we don't work, so the vehicle could have been rented from a driver in that town. There are many scenarios here, that until I've seen the proprietor's license with that vehicle listed, in his name, I've not known who the vehicle belongs to.

Thank you for those that have genuinely helped here.

CK

alastairq

So, there is nothing incorrect about the registered keeper of a vehicle intended for use for hire or reward, not being the actual owner of the vehicle?

Is there an issue with a vehicle on hire purchase, being used for hire or reward?