Taxi Driver Online

TAXI LAW MAY CHANGE

In a sudden announcement today (18 July 2006), the Department for Transport has announced that two amendments will be tabled to the Road Safety Bill currently going through parliament, which will have a direct implication for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing practitioners.

Under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, a local licensing authority has the power to revoke or suspend a hackney carriage or private hire vehicle driver's licence following conviction for a number of reasons or for any reasonable cause. However, under section 77 the decision does not take effect until the time for lodging an appeal has passed or, should an appeal be lodged, until that appeal has been heard.

The effect of the proposal will bring the legislation in line with that for London, and will mean that a decision to suspend or revoke a licence in the interests of public safety will have immediate effect once the driver has been given notice. However, the existing position in relation to vehicle licences and private hire vehicle operator licences will remain unchanged.

The second amendment will close a loophole that appears to have had the potential to undermine the principle of driver, vehicle and operator licensing contained in the 1976 Act. Section 75(1)(b) provides an exemption for operators, drivers and vehicles from the general licensing scheme where the vehicle in question carrys passengers for hire and reward under an exclusive contract for hire for seven days or more. A growing spread of 'car clubs' operating under the banner of Pink Ladies and others has lately been seeking to take advantage of this exemption.

The government's view is that the exemption provided risks to public safety, particularly where children or vulnerable adults are being carried in unlicensed vehicles by unlicensed drivers. Ministers are said to have taken into account information from the trade and licensing authorities that use of the exemption is on the increase; that character and background checks should be conducted by licensing authorities rather than contracting bodies; and that some contracting bodies (taking advantage of the exemption) may not carry out any background checks at all.

It is expected that parliament will debate the amendments in October. Should they be included in the Bill, the government expects the repeal of section 75(1)(b) to take some time to allow existing unlicensed operators to gain the relevant licenses. The amendment may, in some parts of the country, have an impact on those unlicensed operators and drivers who currently only perform school transport contracts, and hospital car services.

_________________
IDFIMH

Oh dear what a shame.

_________________
IDFIMH

Hmmmmmm.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 719a01.htm

_________________
IDFIMH

Nowhere has the issue of Pink Ladies been more widely debated than TDO but in recent months we have seen an escalation of events with the likes of Carlisle finding themselves in a similar position to other Towns in the UK, including Warrington. It is no secret that the NTA has a strong presence in Carlisle and it must have been somewhat amusing for many of us to read that Pink Ladies were going to operate under section 75 in that area. It was no wonder Captain Cab sought to solicit the views of TDO because there is no other place in the Taxi trade where he could have obtained the information and input he required. I knew this and that is why I supplied him with the relevant case law appertaining to the planned legal or illegal operation that Pink ladies planned to operate under.

I have no doubt that many licensing officers who were faced with the prospect of having to live with the spectre of unlicensed Pink vehicles operating without a license in their area, would have written to the DfT to ask their opinion on the legality of such an exercise? I expect the NTA may have also written to the DfT over the subject but we have seen no evidence of this as yet?

One thing we do know, is that this website has a varied readership and its content does not go unnoticed. With that in mind perhaps the changes to section 75 is to some extent down to the contributor's of TDO, as well as those LO's who found the time to bring this anomaly to the attention of the DfT.

Timetable of events.

On June 12th 2005 Sussex started a thread titled "I give it 12 months".

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtop ... ink+ladies

On Thursday 29th September" redldh" started a thread entitled, PINK LADIES-TAXI FRANCHISE

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtop ... ink+ladies

Then in February 2006 Sussex started another thread titled "I'm starting to warm to that 'Pink' mob".

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtop ... ink+ladies

On 27th April Sussex started a thread in respect of "Carlisle Pink Ladies".

"Pink taxis out to improve the Carlisle cab trade"

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtop ... ink+ladies

On Sunday 30th April I began publishing relative case law appertaining to section 75 these consisted of

CRAWLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL v OVENDEN pink ladies

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtop ... ink+ladies

PITTS v LEWIS Pink ladies again?

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtop ... ink+ladies

LEEDS CITY COUNCIL v AZAM AND ANOTHER Pink ladies 3

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtop ... ink+ladies

2nd May "ST ALBANS DISTRICT COUNCIL v TAYLOR" (pink ladies again)

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtop ... ink+ladies

2nd May "ROUT v SWALLOW HOTELS LTD"

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtop ... ink+ladies

On 2nd May possibly the most debated thread regarding Pink Ladies was started by Paisley Buddie entitled

"Unlicensed 'Pink Taxis' to start in Carlisle".

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtop ... ink+ladies

May 24th saw yet another Pink ladies thread started, this time by mctaxi entitled

"Pink ladies request restricted drivers licence in Warrington"

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtop ... ink+ladies

On June 20th mctaxi started another active thread on the activities of Pink Ladies in Warrington. Entitled,

"pink ladies circumventing licencing laws in warrington".

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtop ... ink+ladies

The culmination of all these debates is this latest announcement by the DfT that the loophole we have all been discussing for the last 12 months is to be closed. Apart from TDO I haven't seen much discussion on the subject elsewhere taking place. Everything that the Taxi trade knows about the subject and the case law appertaining to the loophole in sec 75 has come by way of TDO.

I think all you people who have taken the time to lobby your licensing department deserve a pat on the back because I would like to think that it was your activity that brought this issue to the notice of the DfT and its ultimate decision to get rid of it.

Regards

JD

Good post JD and its good news, but i will say though, that where theres a will theres a way and certain types will inevitably always find another loophole to exploit, still its a big step in the right direction

_________________
Legal and proud

Loads a love from BERTIE !!

I'm not too sure there's another loop-hole as big as the contract one, and bearing in mind many have fallen foul of even that one, then let's all hope this works.

As for why the gov has, or is, acting, I happen to believe a lot of it is down to London PH licensing. When the 1998 LPH act came out it had a similar opt-out. Because that was abused the gov soon stopped that.

Maybe they then realised they needed to do like-wise for the rest of us.

_________________
IDFIMH

I wonder if the Government would have acted if there had been no disquiet from the Taxi Trade, the Licensing authorities and there was no such thing as Pink Ladies?

The article stated "Ministers are said to have taken into account information from the trade and licensing authorities that use of the exemption is on the increase". Does this mean if it wasn't on the increase and there was no cause for concern amongst the Trade or Licensing authorities that sec 75 would not have changed?

This bill has been around for quite some time and the inclusion of these two amendments have come very late in the day, which suggests to me that far from being pre planned at least one of these amendments is a reaction to current events. The DfT have had six years to remove section 75 1 B but it has never been mentioned in the past. Not until the problem with Pink Ladies manifested itself and that of some Limo companies trying to use the same loophole.

All in all I don't think it was an item that the DfT had on its agenda, at least not until the activities of the two elements I mentioned above manifested themselves.

Regards

JD

Hear Hear JD

_________________
Legal and proud

Loads a love from BERTIE !!

I would like to post some of these topics about section 75 on the Limo forum as i think the ops who are running under this contract style might want to rethink about how they operate and hopefully get a proper licence, through VOSA or LA's, would anybody have any objections to me copy and pasting them on to our limo forum. Thanks in advance

_________________
Legal and proud

Loads a love from BERTIE !!

Quite possibly.

Maybe the Pink Ladies PR machine was just a little bit too good.

_________________
IDFIMH

I tried to post something last night, but I couldn't get into the forum.

But I think some of those chaps should be made aware that the free for all is coming to an end.

Alex

_________________
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ

Simply the best taxi forum in the whole wide world. www.taxi-driver.co.uk

Hi Alex, yes the forum was down for about 3 hours but is all sorted now. I shall leave it to you to post then as you would probably put it better than i would, THANKS

_________________
Legal and proud

Loads a love from BERTIE !!

In London the GMB and the LPHCA got out of our prams on this one and now you see the result! We can and do work together IE diabetes.congestion charge.eyesight.appeals procedure.driver shields.in car cctv.not all solved but going in the right direction. United we stand divided we fall etc.Comig next red routes bus lanes maybe without LPHCA they dont pay the fines WE DO!!!!

Good post JD

The cases you state were known, although I would like to add the site stimulated the debate, created thinking and due to this, speeded up the process, this is to the credit of the site and its posters.

Perhaps we should be thankful, that due to co-operation, dialogue and input, the end is almost in site for a particularly daft piece of legislation.

Congrats to you all, particularly JD whose input has been excellent.

regards

Captain Cab

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

I'm curious to know if you personally, or the NTA wrote to the DfT in respect of Pink Ladies and removing Clause 75 1 B? And when?

Do you know of any trade organisation that did write to the DfT in respect of the above?

Can you refer to any published article with a reference to section 75 1 B and Pink ladies with a suggestion to removing it, or its significance in respect of limos and in particular pink ladies? Not withstanding the piece you recently wrote in the latest issue of TT.

Regards

JD