Taxi Driver Online

My post was about competition rather than the licensing aspect.

In essence I think that it's realised that in many areas UK PH and taxi fares are in effect the same or very similar, and whether or not this may be challenged under licensing law is one matter, but I don't think it's necessarily considered that a PH charging taxi fares necessarily means that it's a cartel-like situation, and thus necessarily undesirable. For example, the OFT said that in some areas:

"...it is common for PHVs to have taximeters fitted and to charge the same fares as taxis."

But the OFT didn't really comment on this.

By the same token, there will always be a cartel-like situation in the street market because that can only be served by taxis, obviously.

Indeed, in a location like my own and many other small locations it's effectively 100% taxis, so to that extent the scenario that you allude is undesirable is very much the reality.

Of course, the OFT did make it clear that they thought it desirable that there should be more competition in that fare discounting should be encouraged, and obviously this would apply as much to PHVs fitted with meters as to taxis.

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

Credit where credit is due JD

excellent advice

Captain Cab

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

When is a Cartel not a Cartel?

When it’s a Government sanctioned Cartel.

The OFT do not have remit to investigate a regulatory Cartel sanctioned by the Government.

In short a Cartel only exits when it has nothing to do with Government Legislation nor can it be investigated by a Government body i.e. the OFT.

They may be critical in the way Local Government conducts its business but in no way will they officially investigate a regulatory Cartel.

Private businesses yes but local Government no.

Got this right from the horses mouth, OFT

The OFT agrees the plate Cartel exists but insist their hands are tied in doing anything about it.

Don't know about tariffs but your guess is as good as mine. Wrong side of the fence and all that

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

JD's points are in bold, FF's are in ordinary type.

I would be interested to know if any council in Scotland puts the same tariff sheet in private hire vehicles with or without meters as they do in hackneys?


Not that I know off – only in PH with meters.

Answer me this, "Can Edinburgh council regulate private hire fares for vehicles that don't have meters?

My answer is no and I suspect yours will be the same?

I agree.

So we have a situation were every operator in Scotland without a meter could theoretically charge 1.00 a mile and yet someone who wants to run off a meter, has to charge 1.50 a mile.

But they can charge whatever they want under the metered fare.

I do not believe that is what Parliament intended and it should not be forgot that this act was made and passed by Westminster and not the Scottish Parliament.

As I said there is nothing in the act that even remotely mentions regulating private hire fares and it is inconceivable that Parliament would regulate private hire fairs in Scotland that run off a meter and not regulate fares that don't run off a meter. There is no such legislation in England and Wales so why would they burden Scotland with such an ill thought out condition?

Since it seems that many PH cars in England are fitted with meters set at the council rate then does it really seem such a burden, especially since theres nothing in the Scottish act forcing PH to fit meters.

Perhaps it's so that when people get into a car with a meter they know that they will read the same, whether or not it’s a taxi or a PH. Otherwise you could get people jumping into PH with a meter and ending up paying double the taxi fare.

In St Andrews the trade has always been at least 90% taxis, but a couple of the offices have run one or two PH as well, so if people phone for a taxi normally a taxi will turn up, but sometimes it’s a PH. So it’s sensible that if the PH have meters fitted then they are set to the same rate as the taxis. This might be the kind of thing the legislation had in mind, perhaps due to past problems where PH could run at any rate?

Like I said, my own personal opinion is that the reference in the act is to meters only and that there is no reference to regulating private hire fares.

I would say that it’s quite clear:

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 not exceeding £2,500

You seem to be assuming that the wording is rearranged a bit and say:

If any person demands fares or other charges in respect of the hire of a in excess of the scales established under sections 17 and 18 of this Act taxi or for the hire of a private hire car which is fitted with a taximeter, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £2,500

(All I've done here is shift the reference to PH to after the refercene to section 17 and 18, means that the reference to PH isn't associated with the sections 17 and 18, ie the ones relating to the setting of taxi fares by the council)


That would clearly take the section 17 an 18 out of the equation as regards PH cars. But that’s not what it says, whether or not that was what parliament intended. So since it’s so clear presumably that has to be adhered to even if it was a mistake by parliament?

How Licensing officers interpret section 21 is neither here nor there, at the end of the day it will come down to how the judiciary interprets the act and for me that cannot come quick enough?

But it does seem that they are interpreting it as regards its most obvious meaning, and the legislation has been in place for about a quarter of a century, and even though I only became aware of this a few months ago I’m not aware of any meaningful challenge.

So as with many other aspects of the act it’s surely more important how the councils interpret it because in 99% plus of the time it never reaches the courts.

If it was more ambiguous then I could see your point, but section 21 seems fairly clear, at least if read on its own.

And the Executive’s licensing review a few years ago didn’t mention anything about this


I've only just familiarised myself with the fares section in the 1982 act. Under normal circumstances I would let the guys in Scotland debate what is pertinent to them and I wouldn't normally get involved unless it involved the court cases in Edinburgh. However having read the relevant sections 17, 18 and 21 I feel strong enough to voice the opinion that the act does not give power to a council to regulate fares for private hire vehicles. Your assumption is based on section 21 which sets out offences, you place a great deal of weight on that section, in fact you place all your weight on that section and ignore the rest of the act. Section 17 is specific to Taxis. According to this act and Halsburys statutes, Taxis equal Hackney carriages, so when section 17 mentions taxis it does not mean private hire vehicles.

I didn’t ignore the other sections, I mentioned them in my earlier post, as I did weeks ago. Section 17 may relate to the setting of fares for taxis, but surely it’s not unreasonable to extend that to PH in a later section, under the condition that the PH vehicle is fitted with a meter. AS I said it may have been clearer if section 17 had referred to PH fitted with a meter as well as to taxis, but given the clarity of the offence in section 21, does section 17 preclude the use of the offence to regulated PH fares fitted with a taxi meter?

You may be correct in that it was the intention only to stop PH fitted with a meter from charging more than the metered fare rather than the LA taxi fares, but that’s not how the section is worded, and until new legislation is passed the section cannot be amended.

You might wonder why no reference is made to private hire vehicles in section 17, especially if that section of the act was designed to regulate private hire fares? I'm sure the judiciary will wonder that too? You form the conclusion that excluding private hire vehicles from section 17 and 18 was an omission by Parliament. I disagree, I think the wording in section 21 is the culprit and that the reference is without doubt to taximeters and the overcharging of a fare, regardless of the Tariff?

As per what I said above, I can only assume that the fare setting process normally only applies to taxis and the offence is a subsidiary measure that only applies to PH when fitted with a meter, so it wasn’t thought necessary to mention PH in section 17.

It is your assumption that section 21 relates to both Taxi and Private hire vehicles in respect of them both charging the same fare, it is my assumption that section 21 relates to overcharging but it does not state that private hire fares must be the same as hackney carriages?

As I read it it does, and many LAs seem to agree.


I will ask you the same question I asked Dusty.

Does it specifically state anywhere in the 1982 act that a council can regulate private hire fares with or without a meter?

It does in section 21, where the PH is fitted with a meter.

Sorry, I cocked up the rearangement of section 21 a bit. This is what it reads, and seems to quite clearly mean that PH fitted with a meter are limited to charging the taxi fares set in sections 17 and 18.

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 not exceeding £2,500


JD think it should mean that PH should be able to charge only the metered fare, which does not have to be the taxi fare. This would certainly be the case if the section had been worded as follows-

If any person demands fares or other charges in respect of the hire of a taxi in excess of the scales established under sections 17 and 18 of this Act or for the hire of a private hire car which is fitted with a taximeter, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £2,500

In fact even rearranging the wording doesn't really work, because it doesn't really say what fares the PH car would be limited to, but the point is that since the reference to PH in the section is before the reference to sections 17 and 18 then surely the fares that are controlled in relation to PH are those decided under these sections?

So can hackney carriages, that is not the point. The point is, that although there is no specific deeming power in the act, which states "a local authority can set fares for private hire vehicles", section 21 is being seen by many to indicate that they can control P/H fares, if they are fitted with a meter?

The control comes by way of only allowing a tariff that is exactly the same as a hackney carriage? If it involves a meter it seems all Councils will not permit a tariff, which is higher or lower than a hackney carriage? I find this impractical and serving no purpose, furthermore I can't believe it was Parliaments intention to control Private hire fares?



It matters because councils in England and Wales cannot set fares for Private hire vehicles, regardless of whether or not they are fitted with a meter? Your reference to Private hire vehicles in England and Wales using the same tariff as Hackney carriages is irrelevant because they do so by choice, rather than design? In fact, in many parts of England and Wales all that is required to register a meter tariff is that you inform the licensing office of the tariff to be used.




Assuming all private hire vehicles are pre booked, anyone using a private hire vehicle with a meter set at a tariff double that of everyone else, is not going to stay in business for very long. Leading on to the presumption that if you use a p/h vehicle with such a tariff you wouldn't use them again? On the other hand if you used a private hire vehicle with a tariff much lower than a hackney carriage, then you would probably use them again? Your response elevates around the assumption that the council under section 21 can regulate the meter fare but there is nothing stopping a private hire vehicle that doesn’t have a meter from charging triple the hackney carriage fare? So perhaps you can at least see a little widening of the gap in your reasoning that section 21 is designed to regulate private hire fares when a P/H vehicle not fitted with a meter can charge anything they want?

Your reasoning most certainly applies to Hackney carriages but there is no legislation stopping private hire vehicles from charging what they want as long as they don’t have a meter? Therefore what is the point of the reference to private hire vehicles in section 21?

My understanding of the reference point to Private hire vehicles in section 21 is that it refers to private hire vehicles not charging more than what is on the meter, allied to the tariff registered with the council? Alternately a remote possibility might lead some to assume that the reference is to Taxis undertaking private hire work? I do not believe it relates to the Tariff stipulated in section 17 and 18 because both those sections apply only to Hackney carriages and in my opinion there is an intentional preclusion of Private hire vehicles. The wording in section 21 specifically states

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.

Now lets look at section 17 and see if section 21 refers to taxis? Section 17 specifically mentions scales set under section 17. First we ask ourselves is there a deeming power to set the scales for Taxis? The answer to that is Yes. Then we ask ourselves is there a deeming power that sets the Scales for Private hire vehicles? The answer to that is No.

So lets take a closer look at section 21 and its specific reference to section 17, which states

"The scales established in section 17".

The only scales allowed and established under section 17 are those for Taxis. There is no deeming section in the act that states a council can set scales for private hire vehicles?

In the absence of any deeming power the only reference in the act to Meters, is section 21, which refers to section 17, which in turn refers specifically to "Taxis".

I fully understand and respect your opinion but I believe there is more than enough ambiguity in this part of the legislation to have it tested in a court of law?

You referred to the length of time the legislation has been on the statute, some 24 years this October and that no court challenge has ever been forthcoming? In practical terms the legislation is not that old and to infer that just because no one has cared to challenge the legislation that it must be correct, is also wrong?

A prime example is the case of Gladden v Brentwood council. Mr Gladden challenged section 55 of the LGMPA 1976 some 28 years after it was first enacted. Similar to these Scottish circumstances, councils in England and Wales had been placing conditions on Hackney carriage radio operators that should only apply to private hire operators? Therefore it took 28 years to discover that no such fees or conditions applied to hackney carriage operators because the legislation only referred to private hire operators.

The fact that no one has challenged the Scottish legislation in 24 years does not mean that it is lawful? There are many other examples similar to that of Mr Gladen but until someone actually takes the bit between their teeth and challenges the interpretation of the legislation then nothing gets done about it?

The Insurance issue in Renfrewshire is another contentious point because there is nothing in the act which states a proprietor must have fully comp insurance before he can obtain a license. What transpired in Renfrewshire is by way of a council condition and nothing to do with legislation. In fact the legislation states quite clearly that insurance which complies with part 4 of the Road traffic Act 1972 is sufficient to obtain a license.

I will put another scenario to you, which might attract further debate?

What would happen if someone licensed themselves and their vehicle just over the border in England and then used a free-phone number, or any other number which terminated to an address in the licensing authority, to obtain custom from Scotland and the meter they used was higher than the tariff in the Scottish authority but regulated in the English authority? There is nothing Scottish councils could do about that.

Here's another one, what if the vehicle was licensed as an English hackney carriage and used under the same circumstances? There is not a great deal of practicality in these two suggestions of mine, considering the lengths you might have to go to, in order to charge more or less, than the obligatory fare but nevertheless it is lawful?

To me the way it is worded, the reference to Private hire vehicles in section 21.5 is impractical and it would be most interesting to see what the judiciary make of it?

Regards

JD

Right I have been turning the meter off after showing my regulars what the fare is and continued to there destination, now here is another point that I have thought about and that is could I have 2 tariffs on my meter,
say tariff 1 for the council and tariff 2 for mine, I would be complying with the councils orders to have there tariff showing but by hitting the hired button twice I could have my fare for my regulars that way I could keep accurate records at the end of a shift
There is only 1 tariff set by the council and depending on the time of day it is either a £2.00 start or a £3.00 one all the distances remain the same at 0.10 per 120 metres
mine would be a £2.00 start and 0.10p every 176 yards

Sorry for taking so long to reply Mr JD but I was going to try to find out more about it but couldn't be bothered



I certainly agree with this.



I see your point, but perhaps the fact that in England many PH chose to charge the Hackney rates because in practical terms it avoids confusion for everyone involved and if the cars want to charge less or more than they are free to do so, the only point being that if they want to charge more they can't fit a meter?

I assume this is what the Scottish councils that use the legislation are trying to achieve by using the section in this way. Whether it was intended to be used in this way is another matter, but the fact is that it is, and PH fares are only controlled if they fit a taxi meter, and theres nothing that says they have to.

In St Andrews where I work there's very few PH cars and most of them are just doing the same telephone work as the taxis, and I believe it's much the same in Dundee and Aberdeen, so perhaps this is the kind of situation that the councils want to accomodate, as it would be daft to have people calling offices and one week getting a car with a meter fitted and then the next a PH with a meter which might well be reading higher than the taxi.




OK, I was exaggerating a bit by saying they could charge double, but it was just to illustrate the point. I agree partly about repeate business, but I know that some of the PH drivers in the area used to brag that driving a PH gave them the opportunity to charge a bit more than usual, and although most people didn't complain or didn't notice in the end I think the council made them fit meters at the hack rate, although I'm not sure how they were able to order the cars to fit them. As for repeat busines, St Andrews has many visitors and they are the kind of people who could be targetted by people trying to make a quick buck, because they wouldn't see them again in all probability.

I agree that there's a contradcition in my reasoning since PH can go without a meter and charge what they want, but that is a general drawback of having PH fares unregulated, and if the authorities want to keep it this way then that's up to them. But the way I see the provision is that if a car has a meter fitted then it's best that they all show the same fare, whether or not it's a taxi or PH.

Personally, if Ph are just doing the same phone work as taxis and the punters are phoning the same offices then they should have meters fitted compulsory, but if it's chauffer drive or limos or whatever then that's a different issue.



As I said earlier, although theres no complulsion for PH to fit meters it seems that if they choose to do so then they should all read the same, which seems quite sensible IMHO.



I think thats where we disagree, but IMHO the wording of this section is quite clear, so we'll have to agree to disagree.



Agree.



Yes, I acknowledged that earlier on, and agree that there is a conflict. But the wording of sec 21 seems quite clear to me, and although the tariff setting sections don't refer to PH pehaps it could be argued that this is because the fare setting process doesn't apply to PH generally but only if they choose to have a meter?



Yes, although I would say there's no ambiguity in the various sections, but instead a bit of a contradiction when viewing them as a whole.



I agree that legal challenges in the trade are the exception rather than the rule, but but surely there's some weight in saying that a challenge could have been expected by now if the legislation was so obviously incorret?

But I'm certainly not claiming that it's a 100% clear cut, but then again it's not 100% unclear cut




I agree with you to a degree, but on the other hand the Gladen case seemed to be more about a council trying it on or totally ignorant of the law rather than something that many councils are using in good faith? (We dont' have ops licenses here, but I think the Gladen case was about forcing taxis to have ops licenses to take bookings?)



Yes, I agree, but on the other hand the provision seems to be quite widely used and by some of the bigger councils, so in that regard if it was an open and shut case then a challenge might have been expected by now?

I will put another scenario to you, which might attract further debate?



I agree ,and I think there is more common ground between us than it might seem, but I think think our main difference is on the meaning of s21, and on that I think we should agree to disagree.

But there is scope for clarification, but whether that will ever happen, I know not.

I think you are right, the debate on this matter has probably run its course. I think we might both agree that sections 17 and 21 taken collectively do not sit right but the only way that will be clarified is by way of legal judgment? To that extent there is not a lot we can do. I can definately see your point of view but I do believe section 21 in relation to section 17 needs a lot more clarification.

Regards

JD