Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sun Dec 08, 2019 10:51 am

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Vant v Cripps
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 1:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:53 pm
Posts: 10381
This case throws up many arguments and inponderables about any vehicle other than a licensed hackney carriage plying for hire. If it was followed then there might be no signs on Private hire vehicles, no standing in streets and vehicles left unnatended outside private hire offices might probably be deemed plying for hire, added to that this case also makes a point about private hire offices who advertise themselves as Taxis?
...........................................................

Vant v Cripps (QBD) Queen's Bench Division

c.1964

62 L.G.R. 88

Summary

Subject: Criminal Law


Abstract: On two occasions a motor-car was stationary and unattended outside the dwelling-house of the defendants, a husband and wife. Fixed to the rear of the car was a sign, eight inches by six inches, and on the sign in two-inch lettering were the words "Barry's Taxis" and a telephone number.

On the corner of the house, visible to passers-by, was a rectangular globe, containing an electric light fitting, with the word "Taxi" affixed to it twice, and on one side only of the globe a telephone number.

Informations charged the husband with plying for hire with the vehicle, contrary to the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 s. 45, and with using that vehicle without insurance, contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1960 s. 201. The wife was charged with permitting the husband to use the vehicle without insurance.

The wife's policy of insurance excluded the use of the vehicle "for hire or reward other than private hire. " The defendants were convicted.

Summary: Held, dismissing their appeals, (1) that, on the facts, the husband, being in charge of the vehicle, was "plying for hire" within s. 45 of the Act of 1847, and (2) that the vehicle was not covered by the policy of insurance since it was plying for public hire. (Rose v. Welbeck Motors [1962] 1 W.L.R. 1010 considered).


Cases Cited

Rose v Welbeck Motors, [1962] 1 W.L.R. 1010; [1962] 2 All E.R. 801; (1962) 126 J.P. 413; 60 L.G.R. 423; (1962) 106 S.J. 470 (DC)

Legislation Cited

Road Traffic Act 1960 s. 201
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 s. 45


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vant v Cripps
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:33 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 44135
Location: 1066 Country
JD wrote:
If it was followed then there would might be no signs on Private hire vehicles, no standing in streets and vehicles left unnatended outside private hire offices might probably be deemed plying for hire, added to that this case also makes a point about private hire offices who advertise themselves as Taxis?
Image

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 7:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 4:37 pm
Posts: 809
Location: Cheshire
The company i rent a radio off advertises as "taxi office" but all you need is at least 1 Hackney operating on your system.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 4:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:51 pm
Posts: 5795
Location: The Internet
I didn't think there were any actual rules as such, apart from in London, where the PHV legislation precludes the use of the word taxi etc in mincab advertising.

But elsewhere I've heard this 'one car' rule a few times, is it down to local rules, or what?

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 11:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:04 am
Posts: 64
Location: London
The prohibition on private cars carrying advetisments was withdrawn as from 1st of June 2003 by Statutory Instrument 2003 No.580 (C.30) Sec 2,(2)b. This repeals Section 4 of the London Cab Act 1968, which contained the original prohibition on advertising on cars. I feel that out of London it would be an impossible task to enforce any such restriction, as the mandatory VEL carries no restriction on advertising, and millions of vehicle owners already carry adverts advertising their products and services displayed on their vehicles - some of which may infer that those services are immediatelly available for hire.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 3:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:51 pm
Posts: 5795
Location: The Internet
jeff daggers wrote:
The prohibition on private cars carrying advetisments was withdrawn as from 1st of June 2003 by Statutory Instrument 2003 No.580 (C.30) Sec 2,(2)b. This repeals Section 4 of the London Cab Act 1968, which contained the original prohibition on advertising on cars. I feel that out of London it would be an impossible task to enforce any such restriction, as the mandatory VEL carries no restriction on advertising, and millions of vehicle owners already carry adverts advertising their products and services displayed on their vehicles - some of which may infer that those services are immediatelly available for hire.


But that's a different issue to what was being discussed earlier? ie press and hoarding advertisments etc?

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 11:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:04 am
Posts: 64
Location: London
Hello TDO,
I think that seeing the discussion currently identifies motor vehicles as the subject, hoardings are inapplicable - after all they do not ply for hire on the public road, and the prosecutions originally cited by JD were for Road Traffic offences.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 12:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:51 pm
Posts: 5795
Location: The Internet
Well JD appended the point about PH offices describing themselves as 'taxi' services to the issues directly relevant to the case. Mr smiffyz underlined the point.

My point in turn was that this was not specifically illegal as regards the provinces, but the London PH Act of 1998 specifically prohibited PH firms using the word 'taxi' or 'cab' in advertising etc.

Of course, your point in relation to on-vehicle singage is highly relevant to the issue of the blurring of the distinction between PH and taxis, which was in essence the issue addressed in the case cited, but my point related to a slightly different (but not unrelated) matter.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:53 pm
Posts: 10381
jeff daggers wrote:
Hello TDO,
I think that seeing the discussion currently identifies motor vehicles as the subject, hoardings are inapplicable - after all they do not ply for hire on the public road, and the prosecutions originally cited by JD were for Road Traffic offences.


The offenders were found guilty on two counts and one followed on from the other. They were found guilty of contravening section 45 of the 1847 act, that then leaves them open to the charge of driving without insurance. What is significant about this case is that it seems the vehicle was in a stationary position and no one was driving it.

Town Police Clauses Act 1847 s. 45, and with using that vehicle without insurance, contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1960 s. 201.

Regards

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:53 pm
Posts: 10381
In a similar vein this case highlights even further the position of the law in respect of what might happen if you are brought before the court under similar circumstances. It should be pointed out that these cases are on record and you can only judge the verdict of the court by their decision in law, either rightly or wrongly. However as it stands, at the time these decisions were made they were deemed to be right in law.

Ogwr BC v Baker
(DC) Divisional Court
c.1988

[1989] C.O.D. 489
[1988] E.G.C.S. 154

Subject: Criminal procedure


Magisterial law; private hire vehicle in proximity of others plying for hire; no licence; whether reasonable and valid excuse for location of vehicle; whether conclusion one which reasonable bench could have reached

Abstract: R was observed in a private hire vehicle, for which he had no licence, in proximity of a line of hire vehicles plying for hire. He was parked immediately next to a hot dog van from which he had been found previously to purchase food, parking next to the van for this purpose.

On the night in question no such purchase had been made. A couple from a nearby nightclub approached R to confirm whether the car was for them. R ascertained from his controller that it was not. The car was marked with the name of a private hire company but there was no evidence of visible invitation to use or that R had invited the public to use the car.

The justices held that there was a reasonable and valid excuse for his being by the hot dog van and they could not draw inferences from the evidence which constrained them to the view that they were sure of R's guilt.

Summary: Held, allowing the appeal, that by parking where he did R was in the circumstances impliedly soliciting customers and the hot dog van offered no excuse. The finding of the justices was one which no reasonable bench could have reached and the case should be remitted to the justices with a direction to convict.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 5:05 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 44135
Location: 1066 Country
I think, as in all these cases, each case is different.

So a PH mush parked next to a rank with his roof light on, is one extreme. But a PH parked off the main road, in a side street, is the other.

Those two cases are easy peasey for the authorities IMO, but the other 99.9% of cases are where will have conflict. :sad:

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 5:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:53 pm
Posts: 10381
Sussex wrote:
I think, as in all these cases, each case is different.

So a PH mush parked next to a rank with his roof light on, is one extreme. But a PH parked off the main road, in a side street, is the other.

Those two cases are easy peasey for the authorities IMO, but the other 99.9% of cases are where will have conflict. :sad:


I agree that each case has to be judged on its merits but there is no mistaking the fact that these are cases that have actually been prosecuted and found guilty so it gives an insight into how the law is applied in certain instances, which will no doubt serve to inform many who aren't aware of what could happen in such circumstances.

Regards

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:53 pm
Posts: 10381
Newman v Vincent and Another

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

LORD PARKER CJ, WINN AND BRABIN JJ

31 MAY 1962

Road Traffic – Hackney carriage – Metropolitan police area – “Plying for hire” – Mini-cab – Advertisements and telephone number on vehicle – Radio aerial on roof providing two-way communication – Notice reading “Mini-cab booking” on sun vizor – Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict c 115), s 7.

For twenty minutes between 5.30 pm and 5.50 pm on 29 June 1961, a mini-cab was stationary in a road with the driver at the steering wheel. The mini-cab was a Renault Dauphine of distinctive appearance, having various advertisement on its sides and various inscriptions, the most important being a legend on each side of the vehicle “Welbeck Motors, Mini-cabs”.


There was also a telephone number along the roof, and there was a radio aerial on the roof providing a two-way short-wave communication. Further, there was a sun vizor on the vehicle, twelve inches by six inches, which had on its underside the words “Mini-cab booking”. The sun vizor was down at the material time so that any member of the public when passing could read these words. When approached by a taxi-driver, the driver of the mini-cab said that he had been told to sit there by his firm. Whilst the two men were waiting for the police, two members of the public came up and asked if either vehicle was for hire. In answer to the appellant police constable the driver of the mini-cab said “I am just waiting”.

The owners and the driver of the mini-cab were charged with plying an unlicensed hackney carriage for hire, contrary to s 7 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869a. The magistrate upheld a submission that there was no case to answer, and dismissed the informations. On appeal by the appellant,

Held – The evidence of the mini-cab's appearance and conduct was such that there was a prima facie case of the vehicle plying for hire in the sense of being on view to the public and inviting the public to use it, and accordingly there was a case to answer and the proceedings would be remitted with a direction to continue the hearing.
Appeal allowed.

Notes

Case referred to in judgment
Rose v Welbeck Motors Ltd, ante, p 801.

Case Stated

This was a Case Stated by a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate sitting as a magistrates' court at Marylebone on 23 October 1961. On 1 September 1961, the appellant, Barrie Newman, a police constable of the Metropolitan Police Force, preferred an information against the first respondent, Derek Francis Vincent, charging that, between 5.30 pm and 5.50 pm on 29 June 1961, at Addison Crescent, London, W.14, he, being the driver of a hackney carriage was found plying for hire, such carriage not being licensed to ply for hire in the limits of the metropolitan police district, contrary to s 7 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869.

On the same day the appellant preferred an information against the second respondents, Welbeck Motors (Mini-cabs) Ltd charging that, on the same date and between the same times, they, being the owners of the hackney carriage, were found plying for hire, such carriage not being licensed to ply for hire within the limits of the metropolitan police district, contrary to s 7 of the Act of 1869. The following facts were found: At about 5.15 pm on 29 June 1961, a Renault motor car, owned by the second respondents, was parked in Addison Crescent, Kensignton, W.14, with the first respondent sitting in the driving seat.

The vehicle was not licensed to ply for hire within the Metropolitan Public Carriage Acts. On the sun vizor of the car a notice was attached, measuring twelve inches by six inches, reading “Mini-cab booking”. This notice was on the underside of the sun vizor, though detachable, enabling any passer-by to read its contents through the windscreen when the vizor was pulled down. Throughout the material period on 29 June 1961, the vizor was pulled down with the notice attached and visible.

Insider the car was a taxi-meter under the front left glove rack, which was not visible to passers-by. At about 5.15 pm, a taxi-driver saw the vehicle parked in Addison Crescent, and stopped and spoke to the first respondent, said that he had reason to believe that the first respondent was plying for hire, and asked him to wait until the police came.

The first respondent replied, “I've been told to sit here by my firm and so far as I know I am doing nothing wrong”. While they were waiting for the police, two members of the public came up and asked them if either of them was for hire, to which they both replied that they were waiting for the police, whereupon these two persons went away.

One of them was given a card by the first respondent, but the first respondent said nothing on giving the card, and no evidence was called as to what was written on it. At about 5.40 pm, the appellant went to Addison Crescent and saw the mini-cab with the first respondent sitting in the driving seat and talking to the taxi-driver.

The appellant asked the first respondent: “What are you doing?”, to which the first respondent replied: “I am just waiting”. The appellant also asked the first respondent what he would do if someone applied to him about hiring the mini-cab, and the first respondent said that he would tell them to book with his firm and would not take a booking for a fare himself.

When the appellant pointed out the offence to the first respondent, he replied, “I can't say anything”, and when told he would be reported for the offence, he replied, “I only started on Monday”. At 3.45 pm on 14 August 1961, a police officer saw the secretary of the second respondents at their offices who confirmed that the mini-cab was owned by them.

It was contended on behalf of both respondents that there was no case to answer in that the more presence of the notice on the sun vizor was no more plying for hire than the presence of the vehicle in the street. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the mini-cab was clearly being exhibited for hire to all passers-by within the authorities of Gilbert v McKay b and Cogley v Sherwood; Car Hire Group (Skyport) Ltd v Sherwoodc.
b [1946] 1 All ER 458c [1959] 2 All ER 313; [1959] 2 QB 311

The learned magistrate was of opinion that the display of the notice on the sun vizor was not an indication to passers-by that the mini-cab was then available for hire by them, neither was the fact that the mini-cab was stationary in Addison Crescent such an indication, and that there was no other evidence called by the prosecution to show that the first respondent was plying for the hire of the mini-cab at the time and place, and he dismissed both informations. The appellant now appealed.

Paul Wrightson for the appellant.
Malcolm Morris QC and J A S Toogood for the respondents.
31 May 1962. The following judgments were delivered.

LORD PARKER CJ.
This is an appeal by way of Case Stated from a decision of one of Her Majesty's metropolitan magistrates sitting at Marylebone, who upheld a submission of no case and dismissed a prosecution brought by the appellant against the respondents, Welbeck Motors (Mini-cabs), Ltd and one of their drivers, Derek Francis Vincent, for an offence contrary to s 7 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869,d.

d Section 7, so far as material, provides: “If any unlicensed hackney or stage carriage plies for hire, the owner of such carriage shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £5 for every day during which such unlicensed carriage plies. And if any unlicensed hackney carriage is found on any stand within the limits of this Act, the owner of such carriage shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £5 for each time it is so found.

The driver also shall in every such case be liable to a like penalty unless he proves that he was ignorant of the fact of the carriage being an unlicensed carriage … “

The facts here are different from the facts in the previous case, and are as follows. For some twenty minutes between 5.30 and 5.50 pm on 29 June 1961, a mini-cab was found stationary at Addison Crescent with the first respondent at the steering wheel. Although it is not stated so in this case, it is recognised that the vehicle in question was a vehicle as described in the previous casee in which this court has given judgment.

Additionally to the facts regarding the vehicle's appearance as described in the previous case there was on this car a sun vizor twelve inches by six inches which had underneath the words “Minicab booking”. That sun vizor was down at the material time so that any member of the public passing by could read those words “Mini-cab booking”. When approached the driver of the vehicle said: “I've been told to sit here by my firm and so far as I know I'm doing nothing wrong”.

The other important difference compared with the previous case was that when the taxi-driver approached the driver of the mini-cab and they were talking and waiting for the police, two members of the public came up and asked if either of them, that is, either the taxi-cab or the mini-cab, were for hire.

[His Lordship stated the opinion of the magistrate as hereinbefore set out (see p 807, letter h, ante) and continued:] It is quite true that in some respects this is a weaker case than that of Rose v Welbeck Motors Ltd, in which we have just given judgment, because the period of time here was twenty minutes, and, although it was on a public street, it was not a bus turn-round and may well have given the appearance of waiting outside a private house.

On the other hand, it has the exceptional feature of the sun vizor but, more important to my mind, the evidence that its appearance and conduct was such that two members of the public came up and asked if it was for hire. For my part, I find it quite impossible in those circumstances to say that there was not a prima facie case of the vehicle plying for hire in the sense of being on view to the public and inviting the public to use it.

Rose v Welbeck Motors Ltd p 801,

For those reasons I would send this Case back to the learned magistrate with a direction to continue the hearing.

WINN J.
I agree.

BRABIN J.
I agree.
Appeal allowed: Case remitted.
Solicitors: Solicitor, Metropolitan Police (for the appellant); Amery-Parkes & Co (for the respondents).
N P Metcalfe Esq Barrister.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:53 pm
Posts: 10381
I believe someone wanted a Legal scenario of ranking outside a private hire office in the public street. Try this.

Gilbert v McKay

KING'S BENCH DIVISION
LORD GODDARD LCJ, HUMPHREYS AND HENN COLLINS JJ


28 JANUARY 1946

Street Traffic – Hackney carriages – Motor cars – Plying for hire without being licensed – Vehicles standing in public street – Hire and payment made in adjacent street – No contract with, and no payment to, driver of vehicle – Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869 (c 115), s 7.

The appellant had an office in London with a sign, “Cars for hire,” displayed on the outside. Several motor cars belonging to the appellant were standing in the street adjacent to the office, and, on 11 October 1944, several persons were seen to enter the office for the purpose of paying for the hire of any one of the cars in which later they were driven away.

On a charge of being the owner of unlicensed hackney carriages plying for hire, contrary to the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869, s 7, the appellant was convicted and fined by the metropolitan police magistrate. The appellant appealed and a case was stated for the opinion of the High Court:—

Held – Although in each case no contract was entered into with the driver of the car and no payment made to him, there was a plying for hire of the cars standing in the public street.


Notes

It is difficult to lay down any test of what is “plying for hire” on which there are many decisions under the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847. It was held in Cavill v Amos that there was no plying for hire where the vehicle started from private premises, but in the case under consideration the vehicle stood outside the premises and the exhibition of the vehicle, while not conclusive, is a very important factor in deciding whether there was a plying.

As to the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869, s 7, see Halsbury's Statutes, Vol 19, p 165.
Case referred to in judgments
Cavill v Amos (1900), 64 JP 309, 42 Digest 855, 89.
Appeal
Appeal by way of case stated by the defendant from a decision of a metropolitan police magistrate. The facts are sufficiently set out in the judgment of Lord Goddard LCJ.

Geoffrey Howard for the appellant.
Vernon Gattie for the respondent.
28 January 1946. The following judgments were delivered.

LORD GODDARD LCJ.

This is a case stated by one of the metropolitan magistrates, in which the appellant was convicted of “being the owner of a hackney carriage … [which] was on 11 October 1944 found plying for hire within the limits of the metropolitan police district, namely, at 6, Rupert Street, W1, such carriage not being licensed to ply for hire,” and there were two subsidiary
charges to which it is unnecessary to refer, because it is clear that if he was properly convicted on the first charge, he was properly convicted on the others.

The facts found by the magistrate are as follows. The appellant keeps an office in Rupert Street, with a sign on the outside: “Cars for hire.” On the night in question there were several cars belonging to him standing outside the office in the street. Various people came up, and as each got into a car and was driven away, the rank of cars moved forward. In each case the hirer had gone into the office and apparently paid his fare in the office to the proprietor or the manager of the business, that is to say, he did not make a contract with the driver.

The magistrate has found that that amounted to a plying for hire, and it is said that he was wrong.

A certain number of cases were referred to before the magistrate, which he sets out in the case, and some of those cases have been referred to before us. Whether a car is plying for hire or not it is essentially a question of fact which has to be decided by the application to a great extent of the rules of commonsense, and nobody is more able to do that than the magistrate who stated this case, and in this particular case there is no doubt there was a plying for hire.

What was being maintained was a stand, if I may use the word, for cars in the street. These cars were being used and left outside this office to be hired in exactly the same way as taxicabs drive up and stand on an ordinary hackney carriage stand in the street.
Various tests have at one time and another been laid down to decide whether or not a vehicle is plying for hire. Channell J said in Cavill v Amos (64 JP 309, at p 310):

'In ordinary cases, in order that there should be a plying for hire the carriage itself should be exhibited.'

It is quite possible that there can be a plying for hire where it is not exhibited, but where it is being exhibited it is a most important fact.
The only reason why I think it is necessary to say very little more than that we agree with the magistrate is that I think he has gone further in giving his reasons both in the case and the considered reasons than is necessary for the purpose of deciding the particular case. He has said in his reasons:

'I was further of the opinion that, if the cars had been concealed in a private yard or garage, the result would be the same provided that the cars were ready to be appropriated to an immediate hiring.'
I express no opinion whatever as to whether that is a necessary conclusion or not; in fact I am not going to say any more than that I do not necessarily agree with that remark of the magistrate.

There may be cases in which, although the cars were standing in some yard and not actually seen by the public, it might be possible to find that there was a hiring. In any case, that part of the magistrate's finding is not necessary for this case, and I prefer to say no more about it. In my opinion there was abundant evidence in this case on which the magistrate could come to the conclusion that these cars were plying for hire; I would say that there was no other conclusion to which he could come, and therefore this appeal must be dismissed.


HUMPHREYS J.
I agree with every word of the judgment of Lord Goddard LCJ.

HENN COLLINS J.
I agree, and have nothing to add.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Solicitors: H R Hodder & Son (for the appellant); The Solicitor for the Metropolitan Police (for the respondent).
C StJ Nicholson Esq Barrister.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:53 pm
Posts: 10381
A timely reminder of the meaning of Hackney carriage and plying for hire with unlicensed vehicles and the case law to support it.
..................................................................................................

Meaning of 'hackney carriage

Within the metropolitan police district and the City of London, for the purposes of the relevant enactments3, 'hackney carriage or cab'4 means any such vehicle for the conveyance of passengers which plies for hire, whether drawn or propelled by animal or mechanical power, and which is not a stage carriage or a tramcar.

Stage carriage means any carriage for the conveyance of passengers which plies for hire in any public street, road or place within those limits, and in which passengers or any of them are charged to pay separate and distinct, or at the rate of separate and distinct, fares for their respective places or seats.

A motor vehicle which plies for hire but does not carry passengers at separate fares and is not adapted to carry eight or more passengers is accordingly a hackney carriage. Legislation relating to hackney carriages and stage carriages in London no longer applies to public service vehicles, and such vehicles are accordingly excluded from the meaning of 'hackney carriage'.

1 As to the metropolitan police district see POLICE vol 36(1) (Reissue) paras 202, 313–314.2 As to the City of London see LONDON GOVERNMENT.3 Ie the London Hackney Carriage Act 1831, the London Hackney Carriages Act 1843, the London Hackney Carriage Act 1850, the London Hackney Carriage Act 1853, the London Hackney Carriage Act (No 2) Act 1853, the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869, the London Cab Act 1896, the London Cab and Stage Carriage Act 1907, the London Cab Act 1968 and the Transport Act 1985.4 See the London Cab Act 1896 s 3 and the London Cab and Stage Carriage Act 1907 s 6(1), which apply the definition of hackney carriage to cabs.5

Cars standing outside an office which displays a 'cars for hire' sign are plying for hire: Gilbert v McKay [1946] 1 All ER 458, DC. Vehicles bearing an advertisement containing the words 'Mini cab' and having equipment in the form of radio communication may be plying for hire: Rose v Welbeck Motors Ltd [1962] 2 All ER 801, [1962] 1 WLR 1010, DC. See Newman v Vincent [1962] 2 All ER 806, [1962] 1 WLR 1017, DC. Cars not exhibited as available for hire are not plying for hire: Cogley v Sherwood [1959] 2 QB 311, [1959] 2 All ER 313, DC. An unattended vehicle may be plying for hire: see Vant v Cripps (1963) 62 LGR 88, DC.The phrase 'ply for hire' does not connote motion.

A cab is not plying for hire when cruising whilst displaying a 'for hire' sign unless the driver stops when hailed: Hunt v Morgan [1949] 1 KB 233, [1948] 2 All ER 1065, DC.A cab which is in a parking place designated under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (see para 571 note 4 ante) is not deemed to be plying for hire: see the London Cab Act 1968 s 3(2) (amended by the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 s 146, Sch 13 para 4).As to the display of signs on vehicles other than taxis and the use of words in advertisements in relation to vehicles offered for hire which are not taxis see, as from a day to be appointed, the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 s 30 (as amended) (see para 1144 post), s 31 (see para 1145 post).

At the date at which this volume states the law, no order had been made bringing the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 into force.6 See the London Cab and Stage Carriage Act 1907 s 6(2) (amended by the Statute Law Revision Act 1907; and the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1976).7 For the meaning of 'stage carriage' see the text and notes 9–10 infra.8 See the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 s 4 (amended by the Transport and Works Act 1992 s 62(1)). As to tramcars see para 1151 et seq post.9

A coach which stops to pick up passengers with seats booked for the journey is not plying for hire: Sales v Lake [1922] 1 KB 553, DC.10 Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 s 4.11 Formerly, a motor car carrying passengers at separate fares was held to be a stage carriage for the purposes of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 s 4 (see the text to note 8 supra): White v Cubitt [1930] 1 KB 443, DC. A vehicle which is used for carrying passengers for hire or reward and which is adapted to carry eight or more passengers is a public service vehicle even though it is not carrying passengers at separate fares: see para 818 ante.12 See the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 s 64(1); and para 820 ante.

UPDATE

Meaning of 'hackney carriage'
note 3—1853 Act repealed: Statute Law (Repeals) Act 2004.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 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