Taxi Driver Online

Key Cabs Ltd v Plymouth City Council

Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court

Mitting J

8 November 2007

Road traffic – Hackney carriage – Licence – Grant of licence – Claimant operator applying for 30 additional licences – Application not made in relation to specific, existing vehicles – Whether application valid – Town Police Clauses Act 1847, s 40

Section 40 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 provides, so far as material:

'Before any such licence is granted a requisition for the same, in such form as the commissioners from time to time provide for that purpose, shall be made and signed by the proprietor or one of the proprietors of the hackney carriage in respect of which such licence is applied for; and in every such requisition shall be truly stated the name and surname and place of abode of the person applying for such licence, ... and any person who, on applying for such licence, states in such requisition the name of any person who is not a proprietor or part proprietor of such carriage ... shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding [level 1 on the standard scale].'

The claimant was a company operating some 400 taxis and hackney carriages in the Plymouth area. In May 2003, it wrote to the defendant local authority requesting an additional 30 hackney carriage licences. It stated that it required the additional licences as a result of increased demand on its services, not in response to any commercial activity on its part. It offered to make a presentation in support of the application if the authority so required. No reply was received until November 2003, when the authority wrote stating that it had received many applications. It did not indicate whether the claimant's would be accepted. A period of silence followed until July 2004, when the claimant wrote again, referring to the delay and stating that it would present vehicles within two weeks to compel a decision. The authority replied in the same month stating that it could not provide licences as requested. The claimant presented one Peugeot vehicle for plating and licensing, which was refused. It appealed the authority's refusal to the Crown Court, which dismissed the appeal. The claimant appealed to the High Court.

The issue arising on the appeal was whether the claimant's letter of May 2003 constituted an application for the purposes of s 40 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, given that it had not been made in relation to 30 specific vehicles, but rather simply for 30 additional licences.

The appeal would be dismissed.

On its true construction, s 40 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 required that applications for hackney carriage licences be made in respect of specific vehicles only. It might be that the vehicles had not been manufactured, and that information from manufacturers about the allocation of forthcoming chassis numbers and the like would suffice, but there had to be sufficient material to identify specific vehicles.

Although the result did not make modern economic sense, given that it would often be difficult for an operator to acquire new vehicles without knowing whether additional licences would be granted, the wording of the statute allowed no other interpretation. Indeed, it rendered it an offence for an application not to state the particular vehicle.

The letter of May 2003 did not constitute a valid application under s 40.

Alan Newman QC and Peter Maddox (instructed by Ashfords) for the claimant.
James Findlay (instructed by A Gillibanks) for the authority.
_________________________________

_________________
IDFIMH

This judge is new to hackney carriage legislation and it shows. Every case that has gone before the courts including all those precipitated by Kelly has made it clear that an applicant need not supply vehicle details in order to apply for a license. Yet here with have a not so senior misguided judge who completely reverseses everything that has gone before, since 1847.

Bloody remarkable.

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.

Is this case still valid and does it take precedence over Kelly and suchlike ?

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

In respect of what issue?

_________________
IDFIMH

Presenting a vehicle upon application

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

I think it still applies, and despite my views at the time it does seem a sensible way to proceed, i.e. the council can only license a vehicle that is actually put before them.

I suppose an applicant could ask a council if they will license a certain vehicle if it is put before them, and then maybe act on it if they say yes. But clearly if a council has a numbers restriction they will normally not agree.

_________________
IDFIMH

And what in respect of a vehicle over the age limit that a council suggest requires inspection by councillors for first license?

If the application is refused, then the driver will have wasted thousands potentially?

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

That’s why the only avenue is to engage the council before a vehicle is purchased.

Or maybe contact the lead licensing councillor, copying licensing officials, putting the case for going outside the current rules. Clearly current best practice guidance will assist.

Councils, on occasion, can be flexible, but it can be a long drawn out effort not a straight away matter which we all want.

_________________
IDFIMH

Aldritt?

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

That is one of my favourite judgements but I’m not sure how much it applies to the matter at hand.

_________________
IDFIMH

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

But is all this necessary?

If you say to a council I'm looking at a certain vehicle, and if I properly insure that vehicle will you license it, they will say yes or they will say no.

You don't need to buy a vehicle and insurance on the off chance.

_________________
IDFIMH

I completely agree

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