Taxi Driver Online

Licensing are saying that only account work would be allowed,the meter would be off and the Hackneys would be operating on the companies meter on their app. As I've mentioned before it's a ploy to try and get Hackneys to join the local PH company who need to be able to price surge to attract more drivers. It has been reported in the local press and the PHTM.

SOUTHAMPTON TAXI DRIVERS PUSH FOR PRIVATE HIRE WORK AMID 'UBER INFLUX' https://share.google/ALOO3JRcxOYLgEN8g

thanks for clearing that up - the law doesn't really discriminate between cash work and account work - my reading of it is that whilst you can as a hackney charge less than the metered rate, you cannot charge more - irrespective of whether it is cash work or account - the exception is if the fare goes beyond your prescribed area - where you must tell the passenger you are charging a specific amount - if you don't tell the passenger then you should charge the prescribed fare.

As for your LO - I'd be wondering why they are bending over backwards to assist PH operators

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

The law doesn’t distinguish between cash and account work.

Whatever the Hackney customer pays, be that cash, card or account, mustn’t exceed the tariff set by the local council.

I think your LO needs to seek out professional legal advice.

_________________
IDFIMH

Is the operator's app meter approved by the council? Surely the only legal meter is the one fixed in the car. LAs looking to "save money" by these "fiddles" need the purported reliability of the ph car. A HC could easily be flagged on the way to or from a phoned contract job, a bit difficult when running from one contract to another.

There was a court case years ago involving Leeds Council who were successful, hackney carriages carryng out contracts for the Council cannot charge more than the metered fare.

We discussed this on here when it was reported a few weeks ago, Mr Soton, and as you'll be aware it was misreported as basically saying HCs couldn't do pre-booked work.

And it was reported that it was intended to be dealt with via the tariff card, which obviously didn't make sense, because there's nothing on the tariff card relating to the method of hire (and nor should there be).

But, as we suspected at the time, it seemed more probable that it was actually about amending the tariff card to accommodate surge-pricing via pre-booked work.

But which always seemed a non-goer in legal terms, as per what Sussex, Captain Cab and Heathcote have been saying in the thread.

I mean, if it was possible then I daresay some other local authority(ies) would have done it by now. But not aware of any, and if any had, then I'm sure we would have heard about it by now

That's not to say that a tariff card couldn't be drafted to accommodate some form of surge-pricing. After all, all tariff cards already have a crude form of surge pricing in the form of T2, T3, etc. Aren't there eight different tariffs in Brighton & Hove, including the weekend, festive season and vehicle with 4+ seats, or whatever?

But it's difficult to see how it could be done but only applying to pre-booked HC work. And, although a very crude form of surge-pricing could be accommodated, I'd guess the complexity it would require in terms of dynamic pricing and the like just couldn't be properly defined on a tariff card in terms of legality and enforcement.

So it would have to apply to all HC work, basically - rank, hail, pre-booked, HC and private hire circuits - and would become very messy.

So in theory it probably could be accommodated, but in practice it simply wouldn't work

I would like to add that this price surge wasn't requested by us. This is solely the idea of the licensing manager. We had a meeting yesterday and this is what he proposed.We feel that there is a hidden agenda between himself and the ph operator.
We as a trade do not trust the ph operator,especially as it was only this year they removed hackneys from their fleet due to the fact they couldn't price surge.

That makes no sense removing hackneys from the fleet on the basis that it stops surge pricing being an option.

All that is needed is for the data set up to exclude hackneys from surge pricing work.

Basically click of a switch.

Now it might be unfair that a PHV can charge £20 for a job that a Hackney can only charge £10, but that’s the law.

If a Hackney is happy taking the £10 fare then good on him.

Idiotic in my view for an operator to remove hackneys from a fleet for that reason.

_________________
IDFIMH

Just read this,apparently you can add a booking fee with no set price on a table of fares.
https://www.westberks.gov.uk/media/5887 ... 4576255027

Can you point me to the bit where it says that?

I note there isn't a set fee for a booking fee on the table of fares but have a degree of difficulty with it actually being lawful, I also looked at the farecard from 2022 - where like your link says the booking fee is agreed with the customer.

https://publicprotectionpartnership.org.uk/media/64034/West-Berkshire-Council-Table-of-Fares-May-2024/pdf/West_Berkshire_Council_Table_of_Fares_May_2024.pdf?m=1753350296743

Dear old JD gave us this case a few years ago - interestingly enough it seems to come from Southampton - https://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3775

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

Just because that area doesn't fix a booking fee doesn't mean that the tariff card is 100% lawful.

IMO, it would stand no chance in court should a member of the disabled community challenge it. How can a sensible council say to people booking a hackney that you will pay what a licensed PH operator wants to charge, and we are happy for them to do so?

I note on one of their tariff cards that they break down the soiling charge. Only in a nutty council would the costs of spewing be clarified, but not the actual charge everyone pays for their taxi rides.

_________________
IDFIMH

We tend to agree on a lot of things during our old age

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

Plymouth I know, has the 1975 Act,

The Tariff is a part of the Bylaw in force.

The 1847 is included to cover the refusal to take a passenger.

This is on the Tariff, so is part of the Bylaw in force.

Quote:
Made by virtue of Section 23 of the Plymouth City Council Act 1975

The driver must not refuse, without reasonable excuse, to take a hirer or would be hirer to any place within the licensing district, Section 53, Town and Police Clauses Act 1847.

Applies to all journeys within the City boundary, and to journeys outside the City boundary unless agreed otherwise between driver and hirer, prior to the hiring being commenced. The fares detailed are the maximum fares that may be charged. Hirings may be undertaken without the use of the meter where there is a prior contract with a public authority or for a period in excess of one hour. No other charges may be made.
End Quote.

(I have made the relevant part, bold and larger.)

I can go back to 2002 myself, and when this has come up before, my Elders and Betters were of the opinion it had ever been thus.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related