C
Has anyone else got the [broken link removed]?
According to The Irish Times on Friday, the owner applied for a license back in June 2006. As no decision had been made by July 2007, he started the service without a license. The day after he started, he got a letter from The Department of Transport telling him to desist. The Minister for Transport, Noel Dempsey, has asked the Gardai to close down the service.
Brendan
Breaches of licensing laws are commonplace in this country.
It would be silly imho to label a business as a tax evader and advocate a boycott of their trade if they were successfully prosecuted for a breach of performance rights legislation or TV licence legislation.
Does that make it ok then if everyone does it?
That is their entitlement. As it is my entitlement to disagree with them. That said if either IMRO or An Post were "to label a business as a tax evader and advocate a boycott of their trade" on the basis of a conviction for a licensing offence, then they would imho be widely exposed to defamation proceedings.I'm not sure that IMRO or An Post would agree
A surprising number do.a pub can operate without a TV but it can't operate without a liqour licence
From what I've read this is a questionable point - i.e. whether the lack of a (route?) license impacts their insurance status.I think that the Patton Flyer is a good service, but if they had no insurance, then it would be a very bad service. I assume that they are insured.
What evidence is there to support this assertion?They have tried to comply with the bus licensing laws, but have been unable to do so. I really don't think that is their fault.
Presumably I would be free to recommend a particular pub or resaurant if they have been convicted of not having a TV license. That would not be material.
I presume that the Patton Flyer complies with all insurance, tax and other rules. They have tried to comply with the bus licensing laws, but have been unable to do so. I really don't think that is their fault.
From what I've read this is a questionable point - i.e. whether the lack of a (route?) license impacts their insurance status.
Would whatever insurance they have not be void on the basis they do not operate a licenced service?
Be interested in how they got insurance and what the insurers take is on it.
In this day and age, I could not imagine the Dept of Transport and the Gardai tolerating for a minute any party operating a passenger transport service without the appropriate insurance. The fact that they are being allowed to trade would suggest to me that they do have this insurance.
This is where this discussion comes from, in his original post Brendan stated that the DOT had instructed the Gardai to shut down the service as they were not licenced.
Indeed, but as I said, if this fact was disclosed, it should not affect their insured statusIf you do not disclose to you insurer's anything which may affect your insurance which later turns out to be matrial in an offer or refusal of insurance is a breach, and therefore invalidates your policy. e.g penalty points, endorsements, lack of an operating licence etc... The onus is on the proposer to disclose any and all facts relevant to an insurance application.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?