Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Thu Oct 17, 2019 11:25 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 6:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
Perhaps outside of Liverpool not many people will know that this particular case was brought about by Mr W. A. Kelly who has featured many times in legal cases on TDO. This case concerns imposition of new Taxi meters and charging a fare lower than the prescribed fair? This case has been highlighted by me previously but not in such depth.

R v Liverpool City Council ex parte Curzon Ltd

Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office List)

HEARING-DATES: 12 November 1993

12 November 1993

COUNSEL:
Mr Pugh for the Applicant; W Braithwaite QC for the Respondent

PANEL: McCullough J

JUDGMENTBY-1: MCCULLOUGH J

JUDGMENT-1:
MCCULLOUGH J: Curzon Limited operate hackney carriages (in other words, taxis) in Liverpool. The company is aggrieved by two decisions of the City Council's Taxis Sub-Committee.

The submissions raise two interesting points of general importance concerning the operation of taxis. The first is whether a driver is obliged to charge a passenger the full fare prescribed in the table of fares made by the licensing authority, or whether he may charge less. The second is what is meant by the "accuracy" of a taximeter in the relevant legislation.

In Liverpool the licensing of hackney carriages, their proprietors and drivers, is governed by the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and Pt II of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. The licensing authority is the Liverpool City Council, which is a district council. The fixing of fares is governed by s 65 of the 1976 Act. Section 65 (1) provides:

"A district council may fix the rates or fares within the district as well for a time as distance, and all other charges in connection with the hire of a vehicle or with the arrangements for the hire of a vehicle, to be paid in respect of the hire of hackney carriages by means of a table (hereinafter in this section referred to as a 'table of fares') made or varied in accordance with the provisions of this section."

Section 68 of the Act of 1976 concerns the fitness of hackney carriages (and also private hire vehicles, with which this case is not concerned). It provides:

"Any authorised officer of the council in question or any constable shall have power at all reasonable times to inspect and test, for the purpose of ascertaining its fitness, any hackney carriage ... licensed by a district council, or any taximeter affixed to such a vehicle, and if he is not satisfied as to the fitness of the hackney carriage ... or as to the accuracy of its taximeter he may by notice in writing require the proprietor of the hackney carriage ... to make it or its taximeter available for further inspection and testing at such reasonable time and place as may be specified in the notice and suspend the vehicle licence until such time as such authorised officer or constable is so satisfied:

Provided that, if the officer or constable is not so satisfied before the expiration of a period of two months, the said licence shall, by virtue of this section, be deemed to have been revoked and subsections (2) and (3) of s 60 shall apply with any necessary modifications."

The suspensory provisions of s 60 of the 1976 Act are as follows:

"(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1847 or in this Part of this Act, a district council may suspend ... a vehicle licence on any of the following grounds:

(a) that a hackney carriage ... is unfit for use as a hackney carriage ...;

(b) any offence under, or non-compliance with, the provisions of the Act of 1847 or of this Part of this Act by the operator or driver; or

(c) any other reasonable cause.

(2) Where a district council suspend ... any licence under this section they shall give to the proprietor of the vehicle notice of the grounds on which the licence has been suspended ... within fourteen days of such suspension ...

(3) Any person aggrieved by a decision of a district council under this section may appeal to a magistrates' court."

On 23 November 1990 the Taxis Sub-Committee resolved to rescind the then current table of fares and to introduce a new table with effect from 3 December 1990. The old table had provided for surcharges on fares between midnight and 5.00 or 6.00 am. The new table introduced a separate charging pattern between midnight and 5.00 am., with journey charges twenty-five per cent higher than during the day. This meant that taxis would have to be fitted with meters capable of charging at two different rates. Not all taxis were so fitted. This difficulty was met by allowing those taxis not so fitted to continue to charge, both by day and by night, according to the old table until 3 March 1991. By that date all cabs were to be fitted with a meter capable of displaying the new fare structure. It is convenient to refer to "one-tier" and "two-tier" meters.

By 11 April 1991 there were still a number of taxis which did not have two-tier meters. These included taxis operated by Curzon Limited whose drivers were content to charge their night-time passengers the daytime rate. On that date the Sub-Committee, having considered a joint report from the City Engineer and the City Solicitor on the topic, resolved that:

"(a) the City Engineer be instructed to request all proprietors who have not yet equipped their vehicles with meters capable of operating the new two-tier scale of fares to bring their vehicles for an inspection by the City Engineer within seven days of receipt of written notice from the City Engineer; and

(b) in the event that the vehicles are not equipped with the meters capable of operating the new two-tier scale of fares, the City Engineer be given authority to issue the appropriate Notice prohibiting those vehicles from being used as taxicabs until equipped with a meter capable of operating the new fare structure to the satisfaction of the City Engineer."

On 1 May 1991 the City Engineer wrote to Curzon Limited in the following terms:

"By resolution of the Taxis Sub-Committee on 11th April 1991, taxicab proprietor's licenses in respect of the following vehicles is summarily suspended until such time as they are equipped with a taximeter capable of displaying the current taxicab rates of fare."

There were then set out four vehicles' registration numbers and licence plate numbers.

"If within a period of two months you are unable to satisfy that the vehicles have been equipped with a suitable taximeter, the said licences shall by virtue of section 68 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 be deemed to be revoked. Please contact the licensing office if you wish to arrange for the vehicles to be tested with an approved taximeter. The licence plates in respect of the vehicles should be returned to me within seven days."

On 22 May 1991 the City Engineer sent a further letter to the company. It referred to another four of their vehicles, but was otherwise in the same terms as the earlier letter.

Curzon Limited challenges the lawfulness of the second of these suspensions (not the first) and the lawfulness of the resolution of 11 April 1991 on which they were based. The absence of challenge to the first is, I take it, in recognition of the need for an applicant for judicial review to come promptly to the court.

On 8 June 1991 one of Curzon Limited's taxis, DJD 926 V, which was still fitted with a one-tier meter, was stopped by employees of the council at about 1.40 am., ie. during the period of the higher night-time rate. DJD 926 V was not amongst the eight vehicles mentioned in either of the letters. The council employees told the driver to go at once to the licensing office so that the licence plates could be removed from the vehicle. The driver said that he would rather they removed the plates there and then, so that he could just go home. This was done. Curzon Limited challenges the lawfulness of this action.

On 11 June 1991 the City Engineer issued the company with a notice (called a "stop notice") suspending the licence of DJD 926 V on the grounds that it had a "defect", namely, that its taximeter was "incapable of displaying authorised rate of fare". The suspension was to operate until the "defect" was rectified. Curzon Limited challenges the lawfulness of this notice.

Underlying each of the company's challenges is the contention that a driver is not obliged to charge his passengers the rate prescribed in the table of fares. He can, if he chooses, keep his old meter and charge his night-time passengers the daytime rate. Provided his meter correctly displays the daytime fare, which is all that he requires the passenger to pay, it is accurate; the vehicle is not for that reason defective and there is no reason to suspend the vehicle licence.

The 1976 Act applies only in areas where the Act of 1847 is in force. A number of its provisions are relevant.

Section 68 of the Act of 1847 provides:

"The commissions may from time to time (subject to the restrictions of this ... Act) make byelaws for all or any of the purposes following; (that is to say,)"

Then follow six paragraphs, of which the fifth reads:

"For fixing the rates or fares, as well for time as distance, to be paid for such hackney carriages within the prescribed distance, and for securing the due publication of such fares."

Section 54 of the Act of 1847 provides:

"If the proprietor or driver of any such hackney carriage, or if any other person on his behalf, agree beforehand with any person hiring such hackney carriages to take for any job a sum less than the fare allowed by this ... Act, or any byelaw made thereunder, such proprietor or driver shall be liable to a penalty ... if he exact or demand for such job more than the fare so agreed upon."

Section 55 of the 1847 Act provides:

"No agreement whatever made with the driver, or with any person having or pretending to have the care of any such hackney carriage, for the payment of more than the fare allowed by any byelaw made under this ... Act, shall be binding on the person making the same; and any such person may, notwithstanding such agreement, refuse, on discharging such hackney carriage, to pay any sum beyond the fare allowed as aforesaid ..."

The Liverpool City Council, in the exercise of their powers under section 68 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, made byelaws on 21st April 1980. Some of these have been referred to in argument.

Clause 5 appears in a group of clauses headed, "Provisions regulating how hackney carriages are to be furnished or provided." This shows that clause 5 was made in the exercise of the power conferred in the third of the six paragraphs of section 68 of the Act of 1847, which reads:

"For regulating ... how such hackney carriages are to be furnished or provided."

Clause 5 provides:

The proprietor of a hackney carriage shall cause the same to be provided with a taximeter so constructed, attached and maintained as to comply with the following requirements, that is to say:

...

c. When the machinery of the taximeter is in action there shall be recorded on the face of the taximeter in clearly legible figures a fare not exceeding the rate which the proprietor or driver is entitled to demand and take for the hire of the carriage by distance in pursuance of the byelaw in that behalf."

Clause 17 was one of two clauses which appeared under the heading, "Provisions for fixing the rates or fares to be paid for hackney carriages within the district and securing the due publication of such fares." So it was made in the exercise of the power conferred in the fifth of the six paragraphs of section 68 of the Act of 1847.

Clause 17 provides:

"The proprietor or driver of a hackney carriage shall be entitled to demand and take for the hire of the carriage the rate or fare prescribed by the table of fares made or varied from time to time by the council under section 65, Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, or any statutory amendment thereof, the rate for the fare being calculated by distance and time unless the hirer express at the commencement of the hiring his desire to engage by time only.

Provided always that where a hackney carriage furnished with a taximeter shall be hired by distance and time the proprietor or driver thereof shall not be entitled to demand and take a fare greater than that recorded on the face of the taximeter, save for any extra charges authorised by the table of fares which it may not be possible to record on the face of the taximeter."

In this connection section 65 (5) and (6) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 are also material. Section 65 (5) provides:

"A table of fares made or varied under this section shall have effect for the purposes of the Act of 1847 as if it were included in hackney carriage byelaws made thereunder."

Section 65 (6) provides:

"On the coming into operation of a table of fares made by a council under this section for the district, any hackney carriage byelaws fixing the rates and fares or any table of fares previously made under this section for the district, as the case may be, shall cease to have effect."

Since the making of the byelaws in 1980 there have been a number of occasions when the council has fixed a table of fares under section 65 of the 1976 Act. By the operation of section 65 (6), such of the 1980 byelaws as were made under the power created in the fifth paragraph of section 68 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 ceased to have effect when the first such table was introduced. This would include clause 17. But clause 5, which was made under the power in the third paragraph of section 68, survives.

Mr. Pugh, for the company, submits that a driver may, if he chooses, charge his passengers less than the fare prescribed in the current table of fares. Mr. Braithwaite, for the council, submits not. He contends that the Acts of 1847 and 1976 give a district council the right to regulate the fares which are to be charged in hackney carriages which it has licensed. By "regulate" he means prescribe what must, rather than what may, be charged. He stresses the word "fix" and the phrase "to be paid" in section 65 (1): "may fix the rates or fares ... to be paid". He says that these words demonstrate that Parliament did not intend that the licensing authority could only prescribe maximum rates or fares.

The same words are to be found in section 68 of the 1847 Act. It is agreed that the words "may fix the rates or fares ... to be paid" in section 65 (1) of the 1976 Act must bear the same meaning as in the earlier Act.

The principal argument against Mr. Braithwaite's submission is the existence of section 54 of the Local Government (Miscellaneouse Provisions) Act 1976. This expressly contemplates a driver agreeing beforehand with his passenger to do a job for less than the fare allowed by the byelaws. The table of fares fixed by a district council takes effect as if it were part of the byelaws: section 65 (5) of the 1976 Act. Thus section 54 contemplates a driver making a prior agreement to charge less than the fare allowed in a table of fares fixed under section 65 of the 1976 Act. The word "allowed" in section 54 may be significant.

Mr. Pugh also submits that there are other indications in the 1847 Act and in the city council's byelaws which support his submission.

In this connection the only other statutory provision to which he drew attention was section 55 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847. His point is that, while section 55 prohibits and penalises the enforcement of any agreement to pay more than the fare allowed by the byelaws, it contains no similar prohibition in relation to an agreement to pay less than that fare. I attach little weight to this. The function of section 55 was to make it an offence to charge more than the fare allowed by the byelaws. Even if Parliament had intended to prevent a driver from charging less than the fare allowed by the byelaws, it might not have thought it necessary to subject the driver who did so to a penal sanction.

Consideration of the terms of the byelaws is of limited value. Byelaws could not give to the council a power which was not conferred on it by the Act under which they were made. But it is useful to see whether they are consonant with the limitation which Mr. Pugh submits the statute imposes on licensing authorities.Clause 5 c. of the city council's byelaws refers to what a driver is "entitled to demand". The same phrase was found in clause 17. "Entitlement" is the language of permission, not compulsion. Clause 17 imposed (with a minor exception) a prohibition on a driver charging more than the fare displayed on the meter, but none on his charging less. These provisions are consistent with Mr. Pugh's submission as to the effect of the statutes.

It is possible that section 54 could have had some part to play, even if Mr. Braithwaite's submission about the construction of section 68 is correct. This presupposes that Parliament, while giving to licensing authorities a power to fix rates that drivers were required to charge, recognised that an authority might prefer to prescribe only a maximum rate. Even so, I am persuaded that the statutes do not empower a district council to impose on drivers, whether by making byelaws or fixing a table of fares, a fare structure to which they must adhere. Such doubt as there is should be resolved in favour of the less restrictive construction. It is my view that the statutes prevent a driver from charging more than the fares prescribed, but not less; they do not empower a district council to prevent him from charging less.

The great majority of drivers will, no doubt, want to charge the full prescribed fare. But if others do not, they may, at least before the commencement of the hiring, agree to take less. Whether a district council may prevent a driver, at the end of or during the period of hire, from waiving part (or, indeed, the whole) of the charge which the law entitles him to demand is perhaps less clear, in that no section in either Act expressly contemplates such waiver. Mr. Braithwaite said that, other than that such a driver would commit no criminal offence, he reserved the question.

I see nothing in the Acts which gives power to the council to prevent such waiver. There must have been, during the 146 years since 1847, many thousands of occasions when passengers have discovered that the fare exceeds the amount of money they are carrying and drivers have let them off the difference. Waiver in similar circumstances is commonplace in many areas of life. In my judgment, short of a contractual restriction, there is nothing to prevent a driver from doing this if he wants.

I turn to the second issue, which is what is meant by the "accuracy" of a taximeter in section 68. The material words in section 68 are, "Any authorised officer ... shall have power ... to inspect and test ... any taximeter ... and if he is not satisfied ... as to the accuracy of [the] taximeter he may ..." etc. Mr. Braithwaite submits that to be "accurate" a meter must display the fare that the passenger is liable to pay. Mr. Pugh submits that an "accurate" meter is one which accurately measures time and distance, and that no more is required. A meter is that which measures; a taximeter does not measure the fare: it merely displays it. No accuracy of display is required. I do not accept this. Accuracy, in my view, goes also to the display of a fare. An accurate meter must accurately measure time and distance and must accurately translate this into a fare. What fare, is a matter to which I will return.

I want first to consider whether "accuracy" is directed both to the function of the meter and to the manner in which the driver operates it, or whether it is directed only to function. Consider the driver of a taxi with a two-stage meter who forgets to switch his meter from one rate to the other at midnight or 5.00 a.m. Mr. Braithwaite contends that after midnight the forgetful driver's meter will still be accurate, because although it is displaying less than the rate according to the table of fares, it is displaying all that he can charge. But, says Mr. Braithwaite, forgetfulness at 5.00 a.m. renders the meter inaccurate as it thereafter displays a fare that the driver cannot lawfully demand. Mr Braithwaite draws an analogy with a watch. The watch may be capable of functioning properly, but if its wearer has forgotten to put it forward when British Summer Time ends, it is no longer accurate. The meter does not show the correct fare.

In my judgment, this is not the sense in which the word "accuracy" is used in section 68. The section contemplates not perpetual inspection but periodic inspection. The officer or constable requires to be sure that, provided the meter is operated as it should be, it will accurately display the required fare. The accuracy to which the section is directed is accuracy of mechanical or electrical function, not accuracy of driver user. A meter remains accurate in this sense despite the forgetfulness of the driver to change the rate at 5.00 a.m. (which will result in too high a fare being displayed) or to change it at midnight or to start the meter at the beginning of the journey or, where extra charges for luggage or additional passengers are permitted, to put such charges on to the meter (all of which will make for the display of too low a fare). Where through forgetfulness too low a fare is displayed, clause 17, while effective, prevented the driver from recovering more. Where too high a fare is displayed, clause 17, while effective, prevented him from recovering the excess. And in that event the driver offends against clause 5 c. of the byelaws.

Mr. Braithwaite's submission that an accurate meter is one which displays the fare prescribed in the table of fares assumed that the council was empowered to require a driver to charge according to the current table of fares, which is a proposition I have rejected. He concedes that if, as I have held, a driver is entitled to charge what he likes up to a prescribed maximum, his meter is accurate if it is set according to his own scale of charges. This effectively concludes the second question against the council.

I can see why he made the concession. It fits well with clause 5 c. of the byelaws. What the passenger wants to know is what he has to pay. The driver is only entitled to charge what is displayed on his meter. More accurately, this was the position while clause 17 was effective. Despite its repeal, the public perception remains, I believe, the same. If the driver is only going to charge, say, half the rate allowed in the table of fares, then half that rate is what the passenger will expect to see on the meter. Similarly, as with the drivers of Curzon Limited's cabs, if they are only going to charge day rates at night, then what the meter should show is the fare according to the day rate. The concession makes it unnecessary for me to consider whether, even although a driver proposes to charge less than the fare allowed by the table of fares, his meter should nevertheless display the fare according to the table of fares, leaving it to him to tell the passenger that he will take less.

It follows that the one-tier meters fitted to Curzon Limited's cabs, the drivers of which only charged the day rate at night, did not lack "accuracy" for the purposes of section 68 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. Section 68 is concerned not only with the accuracy of taximeters but also with the fitness of the vehicles themselves. Mr. Braithwaite accepts that it would be difficult to say that taxis fitted with one-tier meters lacked the fitness to which section 68 is addressed. In the result, section 68 provided no lawful basis for the suspension of the licences of the four taxis listed in each of the letters of 1st and 22nd May 1991; nor did it for the resolution of 11th April 1991, or the removal of the licence plates from DJD 926 V, or the stop notice issued in respect of it.

Mr. Braithwaite nevertheless submitted that the suspension of the licences was lawful on the argument that section 60 (1) (c) of the 1976 Act empowered the council to suspend the vehicle licence for "any ... reasonable cause", the reasonable cause being that the council did not want the hackney carriages they had licensed to have one-tier meters. I cannot accept this. The council did not purport to suspend under section 60; they relied on section 68. In any event, taking the view I do about a driver's entitlement to charge daytime rates at night, the fact that the vehicle was not fitted with a two-tier meter would not have provided a reasonable cause for suspending its licence.

Effectively, therefore, the company succeeds in each of its challenges.

I should perhaps add that I do not accept Mr. Pugh's subsidiary point based on the words "at all reasonable times" in section 68. He submits that it was not reasonable to stop DJD 926 V in the middle of the night and during the driver's shift. In my judgment 1.40 a.m. was not an unreasonable time in the circumstances. The inspection required could hardly have been briefer; it lasted only so long as was needed to see that the vehicle was still fitted with a one-tier meter. The driver was at work at 1.40 a.m. I do not think it was an unreasonable time to stop him for the purpose of looking to see what sort of meter he had. Had the meter been "inaccurate" it would have been lawful to suspend the vehicle's licence there and then, but the requirement that the driver immediately attend at the licensing office so that the licence plates could be removed would not have been lawful. This is made clear by the words of section 58 of the 1976 Act, which provides:

"(1) On --

...

(b) the suspension of a licence under section 68 of this Act, a district council may by notice require the proprietor of that hackney carriage ... licensed by them to return to them within seven days after the service on him of that notice the plate or disc which --

(a) in the case of a hackney carriage, is required to be affixed to the carriage ..."

I turn to the question of relief. In the exercise of the Court's discretion, I decline to quash the decision contained in the letter of 22nd May 1991 or the resolution of 11th April 1991 on which it was based. The effect of these decisions is long since spent. Curzon Limited's vehicles were all fitted with new meters and were back on the road within a short time. Apart from the question of damages, to which I will come, the only appropriate remedy would be a suitably worded declaration about the freedom which a driver has to charge less than the fare prescribed in the table of fares. I will hear submissions as to the words in which a declaration might be framed.

I am not sure what the position is about the claim for damages. As pleaded it stands at £1,500, being £300 (the cost of each two-tier meter) times 5 (being the four vehicles listed in the letter of 22nd May 1991 plus DJD 926 V). The evidence supporting this claim comes from Mr. W.A. Kelly, Curzon Limited's managing director, who says that the old meters worked perfectly well and the new ones cost £300 each. It seems to me, however, that there should be set against this: (a) the sale value (if any) of five one-tier meters, and (b) such extra income as the company has derived from the charging of the night-time rate which would not have been demanded had the one-tier meters still been used.

DISPOSITION:
Judgment accordingly

SOLICITORS:
Brian Camp & Co, Merseyside; City Solicitor, Liverpool City Council


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 4:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:44 pm
Posts: 10477
Location: Scotland
JD, I wish you had posted that last year, when I was trying to stop the council changeing the tariff on my meter to a higher rate.
I think I am correct in saying the same rules apply in Scotland, as our council has said that the fares are the maximum that can be charged, but we can charge less if we want, as long as the meter is on from a to b.
So if i did not change my meter to the new tariff I would be within the law not do do so.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 5:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
skippy41 wrote:
JD, I wish you had posted that last year, when I was trying to stop the council changeing the tariff on my meter to a higher rate.
I think I am correct in saying the same rules apply in Scotland, as our council has said that the fares are the maximum that can be charged, but we can charge less if we want, as long as the meter is on from a to b, so if i did not change my meter to the new tariff , the taxi inspector would have removed my plates which would have been unlawful.


The case was posted in April 2006.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 43749
Location: 1066 Country
JD wrote:
skippy41 wrote:
JD, I wish you had posted that last year, when I was trying to stop the council changeing the tariff on my meter to a higher rate.
I think I am correct in saying the same rules apply in Scotland, as our council has said that the fares are the maximum that can be charged, but we can charge less if we want, as long as the meter is on from a to b, so if i did not change my meter to the new tariff , the taxi inspector would have removed my plates which would have been unlawful.


The case was posted in April 2006.

Image

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 17837
As I see this, the meters were working and being used. The case in my area is that the meters are not working or being used.

_________________
Grandad,
old fart with no heart


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 2:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:44 pm
Posts: 10477
Location: Scotland
Sussex my PC was down so I missed it #-o :roll: =;


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 11:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 36925
Location: Wayneistan
skippy41 wrote:
Sussex my PC was down so I missed it #-o :roll: =;


For 14 months :lol:

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:44 pm
Posts: 10477
Location: Scotland
I know this judgment is a few years old, but could it be used in Scotland, if a company didn't want to increase the metres at a fare increase????.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 43749
Location: 1066 Country
skippy41 wrote:
I know this judgment is a few years old, but could it be used in Scotland, if a company didn't want to increase the metres at a fare increase????.

It would be of a persuasive nature to the court, not a precedent.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 1:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 4327
skippy41 wrote:
I know this judgment is a few years old, but could it be used in Scotland, if a company didn't want to increase the metres at a fare increase????.


As you'll know, in Scotland if a PH is fitted with a meter then it can't charge any more than the regulated HC tariff.

Section 21(5) Civic Government (Scotland) Act wrote:
If any person demands fares or other charges in respect of the hire of a taxi or for the hire of a private hire car which is fitted with a taximeter in excess of the scales established under sections 17 and 18 of this Act, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction, to a fine...


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/45/section/21

So to my mind once a PH is fitted with a meter it effectively becomes a taxi as far as fares are concerned.

Recall a few years ago there was a big hoohah when an Edinburgh PH firm wanted to set their meters to below the council tariff.

Quite sure the council eventually caved in, but can't find anything about the actual decision, although there's stuff on here about the discussion and press reporting of it all. But can't find anything about how it was all resolved, but quite sure the council issued a decision on the matter.

I suspect the council took a different view as regards HC meters, though, and I doubt if any other councils allow HC meters to display less than the set tariff.

So basically if your council won't let you then your only option is maybe to challenge them in court, but obviously that's not a practical option for most people.

I'd say that the Edinburgh decision would be slightly more relevant to it all than Curzon, because Section 21(5) effectively says that a Scottish PH meter is effectively the same as a taximeter, thus Edinburgh's decision could be cited in argument.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group