Lawrence Hailstone cites that “at no time did money change hands – I was paid by the council” and then claims that his work was the type of work that Section 19 permits were brought in for (routeone/Opinion/30 August).
Well I’d like to remind Lawrence that the restrictions of a Section19 permit stop a vehicle being used for hire or reward and, given that he admits he was being paid by the council to drive for 17 years, this is exactly the kind of work the abuse of the Section 19 permit is being shouted about.
Perhaps Lawrence should remind himself that the only way that driving passengers about for reward (the wages he took) was to do so under an O-Licence otherwise he is taking work from operators.
The council cannot lawfully pay you a wage to drive the bus in those circumstances.
You also need the full Driver CPC and an unrestricted D1 category licence. Unrestricted means to not have the 101 restriction on your licence for hire or reward.
I strongly suspect Lawrence did not have a full licence, or a Driver CPC and he has admitted that he was being paid.
I hope other people in Lawrence’s position realise they need an unrestricted D1 licence, a Driver CPC and their local council vehicle needs to have a blue disc in the window on every run to do this work.
Name and address supplied
