Ttaskmaster

Salford City Council are quite vague on this particular poiont. The closest I found was, "The operator must ensure that any person who drives a private hire vehicle operated by them is licensed by Salford City Council as a private hire driver. The operator should retain the licence of the driver, and on leaving the driver shall be entitled to the return of the licence immediately". https://www.salford.gov.uk/media/387356/taxi_licensing_policy.pdf However, it seems that sometimes Salford comes under Man City or Greater Manchester local authority. In that instance, Man City LA policy states, "Only drivers with a valid Private Hire Driver’s Licence issued by Manchester City Council can drive a Manchester private hire vehicle at any time". https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiXlc-Bsr3_AhWHJ8AKHcKABPYQFnoECA8QAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.manchester.gov.uk%2Fdownload%2Fdownloads%2Fid%2F15822%2Fphv_-_guidance.pdf&usg=AOvVaw04HSIfsaUSfKjOrwYWzvi6

They'd have to get rid of that god-awful glass slab of a touchscreen monstrosity before I'd even consider one!!

Yeah, I'm told Scots are easily confused...

Can you tell us what town the first garage was in?

Except that in the Wiltshire regulations that you posted, it states a private hire vehicle remains a licenced vehicle 24 hours a day, regardless of use, and can only be driven by the holder of an appropriate licence. I did find some regs for a council in Norfolk that expressly states they permit spouses and certain other parties to drive PH vehicles, while others expressly forbid it just like Wiltshire. The conclusion then seems that it varies from council to council, and the 2014 amendments posted by Toot were not universally adopted, at least by 2018. So I would surmise the OP's mechanic works under a LA that does not permit such access. @Brian15 - Any further development on this one, fella? The Briskoda Armchair Lawyers Guild are keen to know!

It's pretty clear.... No licence from this LA, no driving the 'private hire vehicle', no exceptions and no exemptions. So again, I presume that's why the garage want the OP present, as he'll be the one driving during the test while the mechanic rides along.

Well, the OP's garage says it's an insurance matter for them. So unless you have some kind of legal documentation, ideally that garage's specific insurance policy, we can't say either way. Just because people around you all do something, doesn't mean it's legal. If it were, we'd not need 'uninsured driver' clauses in our insurance policies.

Parts lists can often be found in the Downloads section here on the forum, or online: https://skoda.7zap.com/en/cz/ As for places to find parts... I here there's one in Tel Aviv at Hamasger 8, called General Brakes. There's also another in Hertzliya at Maskit 5 - branch of Masika from Hadera. Online, perhaps try: 1/. https://warco.co.il/eng/warco_item.aspx?yad2=0&id=39615&familyId=21&familyName=Engine Parts&manufacturerId=24&manufacturerName=Skoda&modelId=162&modelName=Octavia 2/. https://www.supplynfix.co.il/skoda-parts-185420 Does that help?

According to the solicitors' own wording, it IS an offence and you WILL be found guilty. They go on to say that driving an unlicenced taxi (or private hire vehicle) wil automatically invalidate your licence, which then also leaves you open to charges of driving without insurance. So that's potentially three prosecutions from the one offense: Driving without a valid driving licence Driving a taxi without being a licenced taxi driver Driving without valid insurance But will it? According to the Taxi Drivers forum, it already has. In the anecdotes, it was typically a taxi driver's spouse just borrowing the private hire vehicle to nip down the shops. However - Further reading yielded this: "The Town Police Clauses Act 1847 Section 46 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (drivers not to act without first obtaining a licence) shall not apply to a person driving a hackney carriage licensed under that Act for the purpose of or in connection with (a) any test of the mechanical condition or fitness of the hackney carriage or its equipment carried out for the purposes of [section 45 of the Road Traffic Act 1988] (tests of satisfactory condition of vehicles other than goods vehicles) or for the purposes of any requirements with respect to such condition or fitness imposed by or under any other enactment" I'd say that if it applies to a hackney carriage, it applies to a private hire vehicle. So as a point of debate, the OP may well want to show the garage this legislation (in full, ideally) and see what they say... They're not outright refusing to do the work anyway, so presumably they'd be open to reading this?

"Unlicenced drivers will be found guilty of driving a taxi or private hire vehicle without a licence if they are caught trying to solicit custom in a public place, or seen referring to their vehicle as a taxi, such as by having the word ‘taxi’ displayed on their vehicle." In other words, if it looks like a taxi OR PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE, then it may constitute an offense if you're driving it around without being approriately licenced. Both types require the licence.

From the sounds of it, driving around with the word TAXI on the vehicle would be the offense, if you're not a licenced taxi driver. You can have it in the garage for work, but you can't actually drive it out on the road even with trade plates on, unless you remove all the livery and stuff. The taxi driver forum I linked to suggested that people have been prosecuted for such an offense, though of course I cannot say whethery they're just lying to eachother or what... But certainly the OP's garage is not refusing the work - They just require the OP to be present on the test drive, which lends credence to it being some legal issue they know about.

Taxi insurance (including private hire) is not the same as normal insurance, and the conditions in which the vehicle is driven may be restricted. For example, I heard a rumour that only a licenced taxi driver can drive the taxi, meaning that a spouse would not be insured, so neither would be the garage mechanic. "Unlicenced drivers will be found guilty of driving a taxi or private hire vehicle without a licence if they are caught trying to solicit custom in a public place, or seen referring to their vehicle as a taxi, such as by having the word ‘taxi’ displayed on their vehicle. The penalty for operating a taxi without a licence is a fine of up to £2,500" https://www.pdalaw.co.uk/services-for-you/road-traffic-offences/taxi-offences/ Also: http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7886 The above suggests it would therefore be an offense for a mechanic to drive it, unless s/he were also a licenced taxi driver, hence requiring one to be present during the test drive.

The car did eventually out the indicators on... I dunno what your problem is, to be honest!! We had someone execute this exact same manoeuvre in front of us once... although we were on motorcycles, they cut a LOT closer to the front wheel of the lead rider (my wife), and it was at 70mph down a motorway, with somewhat less room before the metal barriers at the split.

Is this for a monitor you already have, or one you're planning to get? I ask, because some monitors come with KVM switches built in, nowadays. My new 4k monitor has one.

If you're anywhere near Reading, or can get the car here, I can personally recommend a very good independent mechanic, who also knows VAG cars very well and has all the brand-specific tools, including VAGCom/RossTech...

They do it for the few submissions that will actually be usable and worth prosecuting. "Where action is proportionate and there is sufficient evidence to successfully prosecute the case at Court, the incident will most likely be dealt with via the fixed penalty system". There will be some people with 4k resolution recordings, that happen to catch an indisputably clear image of both the registration and the face of the driver... But in order to get that, they'll have to sift through the mountains of blurry crap shot in the pouring rain at night that shows only a bit of the scene, in which some driver went slightly over the white line due to a misjudged manoeuvre and, while he flashed the Hazards of Forgiveness, still deserves to be banged up for life due to his negligence. I may sound like I'm exaggerating, but we watched a bunch of YouTube compilations showing "Britian's WORST Drivers" last night... and there was barely anything you'd not get on a normal commute or trip down the shops. Certainly nothing that would even incur a FPN, yet these were the "WORST" that the Highway Coderatti could manage..... Given how many of these are on YouTube, I can only imagine the volumes of such that would flow through the app!!

While this is true, it's also a daily occurrence which would still need court-quality evidence to even try prosecuting, and based on TikTok and eBay photos, a lot of people don't know enough about using a camera. More importantly, the app would lead to people using camera-phones while driving. I don't believe that needs to be expanded upon....? Another worry is that apps like this will encourange other people to get over-zealous in their self-policing attitudes. In theory this isn't a bad thing, but almost none of them (nor anyone else) is really equipped and trained to know and enforce the law. As is, you'll find plenty of drivers who will deliberately block lanes to prevent someone from going a few MPH and passing the line of traffic. Others love to hassle cyclists for not quite being exactly in the right section of the road. This is just a road app, mind, but I can see other apps coming out for other things too. The idea that you can have some app on your phone, stick it in someone's face while they bend a rule, and expect The Police to just deal with it thereafter is not one to be encouraged... Also, people don't like being called on their bad behaviour by those who aren't empowered to do so - At best, it'd end in confrontation and a good kicking for said caller. However, if the law were to change it might be a different story, but alas I can't see them letting us do such things.

As mentioned above, there are plenty of people not in their right minds, who will FLOOD Police inboxes with videos of even the most minor imagined slight or transgression. Case in point, the incident where the Police were summoned to give a stern dressing-down to a three-year-old that had accidentally scratched someone's car. Besides, 85mph isn't very fast. Most cops won't even stop you until you breach 90, and even then I see plenty others driving well over a ton on a daily basis. Cutting up, cutting in, overtaking cyclists too close, going the wrong way down a one-way street, parking in disabled bays or parent bays, the list of possibilities is so endless, it'd be a full-time job for even the most dedicated busybody....

I'm leaning heavily toward the Farce side of this concept. Firstly, as if the Police don't already have enough to do, we now want to offload to them every single minor instance of someone doing something that someone else 'thinks' is not only illegal, but worthy of a full Police intervention and prosecution??!! "Hello 999, which service do you require? .......yes...... right...... OK, well, I'm afraid I don't have any officers free to stop your assault right now, luv. They're all out chasing down some maniac who was doing 33 in a 30. We might have a slot in about two weeks, if we get the dashcam footage processed in time. Would that be alright? ...... hello?...... Hello, are you still there, Luv?" Secondly, we already have more than enough unqualified bell-ends deliberately setting incidents up so they can "Audit" the Police, for no reason other than getting likes on their YouTube channels. We don't need to encourage this sort of mentality.

OBD-II is the second version of the OBD standard, II being the Roman numeral for 2. https://www.geotab.com/uk/blog/obd-ii/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics

I've got two different Joie ones in my Octy. The 360 swivel model is brilliant for eliminating the tight and fiddly parts of strapping a kid in.

Anyone with a few quid and Google can obtain the tools and use-knowledge to 'pick' open a lock far faster than with a hammer and screwdriver, which results in the non-destructive theft of a vehicle and so yields a higher fenced price... I say 'pick' as it's often not the traditional technique of torque wrenches and rakes or anything, but still lock manipulation or even bypassing without braking anything. It's just unfortunate that only professional thieves bother with such things. As for attacking.... I merely advise leaving no witnesses. That includes the ability of the thief to offer testimony.

People said the same thing when I fitted a motorcycle alarm, but it's nothing to do with them... It's there purely so *I* get woken up and prompted to blaze outside with something in hand with which to beat the bike thief senseless. These days, however, you might get someone filming it on their smartphone at least, which may then identify the thief.

From my manual, 2003 Octavia: "Unlocking the vehicle using the key Note If the vehicle is equipped with an anti-theft alarm system, you must unlock the vehicle by inserting the key into the driver door you then have to insert the key into the ignition lock and switch the ignition on within 15 seconds after unlocking the door. The alarm will be triggered if you do not switch on the ignition within 15 seconds" Not stupid, as it's a guard against people picking the lock before attempting to hotwire the car, or other similar methods of theft.

Mine was doing the exact same thing, which resulted from the door membrane not being replaced after it was torn open to fix a busted window regulator. 2" of water in the rear left footwell, which took an absolute age to dry out, even in Summer. Thankfully the tears were fairly clean and comparatively easy to tape back together again, but really any thick plastic stuck down along the appropriate lines should suffice.