Purchased a car not disclosed it was a London Taxi...

MattMattMattUK

williamgriffin said:

MattMattMattUK said:

williamgriffin said:

Robbo66 said:

hogspudding said:

neilmcl said:

Yes, this should've been disclosed but I'd doubt it's "worth considerably less" because of it. What outcome do you want?

You've owned the car for a year now, how did you "just find out" it was a taxi?

Apparently ex taxis on average have a value of 20% less on the market, they are less desirable just like cars which have been written off, stolen and recovered or even ex Police cars. Its recently been MOT'd and tester said it was a taxi because it had been MOT'd every 6 months

So you don't actually know it was used as a taxi, its just someones assumption. It could have been used for a chauffeur service, they have the same MOT requirements 

A chauffeur service has the same mot requirement as a minicab because that's what it is a private hire vehicle. 

Not necessarily, it is if it is an outsourced chauffer, however it is not a private hire vehicle if it is owned by the company, with the driver directly employed, exclusively for use of employees on company business. 

What has ownership of the vehicle got to do with private hire testing?

What you have described is a company vehicle and wouldn't be subject to such testing. 

Many companies have a company chauffeur or two and offer chauffeur services within the company, those vehicles are not private hire vehicles, but many company vehicles have a MOT every six months for insurance purposes, especially in large fleets. For large commercial policy holders agreeing to MOT the vehicles every six months can have a reasonable impact on the insurance costs, far more than the cost of the extra MOT tests.

williamgriffin

MattMattMattUK said:

williamgriffin said:

MattMattMattUK said:

williamgriffin said:

Robbo66 said:

hogspudding said:

neilmcl said:

Yes, this should've been disclosed but I'd doubt it's "worth considerably less" because of it. What outcome do you want?

You've owned the car for a year now, how did you "just find out" it was a taxi?

Apparently ex taxis on average have a value of 20% less on the market, they are less desirable just like cars which have been written off, stolen and recovered or even ex Police cars. Its recently been MOT'd and tester said it was a taxi because it had been MOT'd every 6 months

So you don't actually know it was used as a taxi, its just someones assumption. It could have been used for a chauffeur service, they have the same MOT requirements 

A chauffeur service has the same mot requirement as a minicab because that's what it is a private hire vehicle. 

Not necessarily, it is if it is an outsourced chauffer, however it is not a private hire vehicle if it is owned by the company, with the driver directly employed, exclusively for use of employees on company business. 

What has ownership of the vehicle got to do with private hire testing?

What you have described is a company vehicle and wouldn't be subject to such testing. 

Many companies have a company chauffeur or two and offer chauffeur services within the company, those vehicles are not private hire vehicles, but many company vehicles have a MOT every six months for insurance purposes, especially in large fleets. For large commercial policy holders agreeing to MOT the vehicles every six months can have a reasonable impact on the insurance costs, far more than the cost of the extra MOT tests.

So why would they be put through a private hire test?

MattMattMattUK

The OP did not say that they had been put through a different test, only that the vehicle had been MOTed every six months, which the tester had said they thought might have been indicative of being a private hire vehicle. 

williamgriffin

MattMattMattUK said:

The OP did not say that they had been put through a different test, only that the vehicle had been MOTed every six months, which the tester had said they thought might have been indicative of being a private hire vehicle. 

He's checked the car on Vehicle Ancestry and they claim it to be listed on a database as having been a licenced taxi or private hire. 

Robbo66

williamgriffin said:

Robbo66 said:

hogspudding said:

neilmcl said:

Yes, this should've been disclosed but I'd doubt it's "worth considerably less" because of it. What outcome do you want?

You've owned the car for a year now, how did you "just find out" it was a taxi?

Apparently ex taxis on average have a value of 20% less on the market, they are less desirable just like cars which have been written off, stolen and recovered or even ex Police cars. Its recently been MOT'd and tester said it was a taxi because it had been MOT'd every 6 months

So you don't actually know it was used as a taxi, its just someones assumption. It could have been used for a chauffeur service, they have the same MOT requirements 

A chauffeur service has the same mot requirement as a minicab because that's what it is a private hire vehicle. 

I know, the term taxi is generic or do you say "I'll get a mini cab/Private hire vehicle home" I'm sure not its I'll get a taxi. When someone gets a chauffeur car again they don't use the term mini cab or PHV. Lets not get stuck on semantics, the Op had no actual proof it was a car for hire other than the MOT testers opinion so their assumption the car should be 20% less based on that info is a non starter. If the car was priced with mileage and condition in mind then the previous history is irrelevant.

williamgriffin

Robbo66 said:

williamgriffin said:

Robbo66 said:

hogspudding said:

neilmcl said:

Yes, this should've been disclosed but I'd doubt it's "worth considerably less" because of it. What outcome do you want?

You've owned the car for a year now, how did you "just find out" it was a taxi?

Apparently ex taxis on average have a value of 20% less on the market, they are less desirable just like cars which have been written off, stolen and recovered or even ex Police cars. Its recently been MOT'd and tester said it was a taxi because it had been MOT'd every 6 months

So you don't actually know it was used as a taxi, its just someones assumption. It could have been used for a chauffeur service, they have the same MOT requirements 

A chauffeur service has the same mot requirement as a minicab because that's what it is a private hire vehicle. 

I know, the term taxi is generic or do you say "I'll get a mini cab/Private hire vehicle home" I'm sure not its I'll get a taxi. When someone gets a chauffeur car again they don't use the term mini cab or PHV. Lets not get stuck on semantics, the Op had no actual proof it was a car for hire other than the MOT testers opinion so their assumption the car should be 20% less based on that info is a non starter. If the car was priced with mileage and condition in mind then the previous history is irrelevant.

The OP claims having checked Vehicle Ancestry it's was a licenced taxi or PHV.

Its that site that makes the claim a vehicle is worth 20% less if it were a taxi in aid to get you to part with £2.99.

unholyangel

Robbo66 said:

williamgriffin said:

Robbo66 said:

hogspudding said:

neilmcl said:

Yes, this should've been disclosed but I'd doubt it's "worth considerably less" because of it. What outcome do you want?

You've owned the car for a year now, how did you "just find out" it was a taxi?

Apparently ex taxis on average have a value of 20% less on the market, they are less desirable just like cars which have been written off, stolen and recovered or even ex Police cars. Its recently been MOT'd and tester said it was a taxi because it had been MOT'd every 6 months

So you don't actually know it was used as a taxi, its just someones assumption. It could have been used for a chauffeur service, they have the same MOT requirements 

A chauffeur service has the same mot requirement as a minicab because that's what it is a private hire vehicle. 

I know, the term taxi is generic or do you say "I'll get a mini cab/Private hire vehicle home" I'm sure not its I'll get a taxi. When someone gets a chauffeur car again they don't use the term mini cab or PHV. Lets not get stuck on semantics, the Op had no actual proof it was a car for hire other than the MOT testers opinion so their assumption the car should be 20% less based on that info is a non starter. If the car was priced with mileage and condition in mind then the previous history is irrelevant.

People use it generically. But the word itself is not generic. Cab is the correct generic term.

Sort of how some people refer to their vacuum cleaner as "a hoover" despite it being a Dyson (and therefore, not a hoover)

Many cab drivers moonlight as a chauffeur for corporate or private events (such as weddings). Legally, there's no difference between the two, just their choice on how to operate their business/their chosen demographic. 


But I believe the OP has confirmed it was registered as a taxi. Though I admit, I'm too lazy to scroll back and check.

Robbo66

But I doubt a best part of 30k secondhand Mercedes would have been registered as a taxi meaning it would have had a meter, it would possibly have been registered as a PHV which includes Chauffeur Service cars, this still begs the question as to whether the cars condition and mileage was taken in to account when it was priced and surely the OP looked at several cars before deciding to purchase this one so would have had others to compare it to. If the pricing was in line with the market what has they lost. if a car in B condition is worth X and the O{s car is in B condition and they paid X does it really matter how it was previously used.

williamgriffin

Robbo66 said:

But I doubt a best part of 30k secondhand Mercedes would have been registered as a taxi meaning it would have had a meter, it would possibly have been registered as a PHV which includes Chauffeur Service cars, this still begs the question as to whether the cars condition and mileage was taken in to account when it was priced and surely the OP looked at several cars before deciding to purchase this one so would have had others to compare it to. If the pricing was in line with the market what has they lost. if a car in B condition is worth X and the O{s car is in B condition and they paid X does it really matter how it was previously used.

You're right it doesn't matter, the OP is happy with the car so I don't know why he's made such of a song and dance about it. 

Manxman_in_exile

It's obvious why he's making a song and dance out of it.

His MOT tester has suggested it might have been a "taxi" in a previous life.  The OP has checked and it would appear it was a taxi.  The OP is totally happy with the car but is now wondering if he can get a partial refund for not being told the car had been a taxi when he bought it.  The OP never asked the dealer if the car had previously been a taxi because it had never occurred to him to do so as it didn't matter to him at the time.  The OP has decided that it does matter to him now and is kicking himself for never asking in the first place.