Taxi advice

CKhalvashi

alastairq wrote: »

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?

I've covered this already, as given a breakdown to why I've taken the action I've taken. As mentioned, the OR was surprised to hear of the vehicle in possession of the person it's in possession of.

I don't know why the assumption seems to be that those in the BR situation can do no wrong. I have seen more than one occasion where I've helped someone through this, and they have ended up with BRO/BRU due to not being completely honest. Therefore it will be for the OR to decide and act as appropriate.

You may have been honest when you went BR, however whilst I can sympathise with moral dilemma of BR, I can't with not fully disclosing affairs to OR.

CK

coolcait

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!

From my point of view - No presumptions. No accusations. Just reporting facts.

Joe Bloggs isn't sure if something is OK. So he reports the facts to the relevant authority. In this case, the OR.

The OR then has a number of options:

- they're already aware of the facts, and have decided that there is no issue. Or they are already following it up;

- they weren't aware of the facts. They may decide that there is no issue, or they may follow it up.

And so on.

Your post, on the other hand, takes a very different approach to the issue.