Taxi Driver Online

Before the Transport Act 1985 amendment, the section 37 of the 1847 Act, as quoted in the first Castle Point case states:

“The [local authority] may from time to time license to ply for hire within [their borough] ... such number of hackney coaches or carriages of any kind or description adapted to the carriage of persons as they think fit.”

The HC drivers in Castle Point wanted the new HC licenses to be prevented from hacking at Benfleet station, where most of the existing HCs ranked up.

They argued that the section above meant that the LA could license HCs within the borough, and the LA could then attach a condition by virtue of the LG(MP) Act 1976. They thus were arguing that the section quoted above did not mean that any licenses issued had to be for the whole borough.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the wording of the section meant that they could only license for the whole borough, and therefore couldn't confine any HCs to any particular part of the borough.

Obviously the above section can be read either way

1 - the LA can license to ply within the borough, meaning that any license was for the whole borough.

2 - the other way to read it is that the LA has powers to license in that borough, but how they exercise that power is up to them - ie they could zone.

So the Court of Appeal looked back at the initial version of the Act to see if that could shed light on what the amended version meant.

The original version read:

"The commissioners may from time to time licence to ply for hire within the prescribed distance, or if no distance is prescribed, within five miles from the General Post Office of the city, town or place to which the special Act refers, (which in that case shall be deemed the prescribed distance,) such number of hackney coaches or carriages of any kind or description adapted to the carriage of persons as they think fit."

The judge concluded that with that version of the Act the part in bold clearly showed that in those days the powers related only to the fact that the LA could only license to ply throughout the relevant area (ie within the prescribed distance) and they could not therefore zone the relevant area.

He then concluded that the amendment to the act could only have been intended to change the area within which the LA could license, and it therefore did not give them any further powers. So zoning using the LG(MP) Act was not possible.

Thus the old version of the Act was used to interpret the new version of the Act.

The old version of the Act is OLD LAW.

Innit?

Dusty

Incidentally, the 'zoning' dealt with in the Castle Point case was not zoning in the sense that we normally think of it.

What Castle Point had proposed doing was preventing the new licenses plying at Benfleet station. Thus the new licenses would be confined to the area away from the station, whereas the existing licenses could ply anywhere ie in both of the zones.

This is what they meant by having a two-tier system - ie some could ply anywhere, and some could only ply in the specified zone - normally zones are really just smaller versions of unzoned LAs.

Dusty

The Doncaster case was about operating conditions. In the 1976 act there is no provision for HC operator licenses. Doncaster council thought they would create some, the courts said oh no.

Another case where a council has decided that it knows the law better than those who wrote it, is Neath & Port Talbot County Borough Council.

They decide that they could imagine that the 1976 act allowed them to impose conditions on HC drivers, in the same way as PH drivers.

Whether the 1976 act either forgot or wanted to forget about HC driver conditions, matters not. It's not in there, so they then had to go back to 1847, which means that if councils want HC drivers to wear suits, or look like a penguin, they have to amend the by-laws. Not an easy task.

So my point is that the 1976, and the 1985 acts, are hugely relevant. But if the bit you need is not there, back to 1847 you must a go go.

no thats not right, and you have it wrong, must have, so go one whats the new law exactly?

Wharfie

So what exactly have I 'got wrong'?

You can't say that I 'must have' got it wrong without explaining why.

I can't 'must have' got it wrong just because you say so!

Dusty

well quite simply I cannot see in the text the we study old law to understand new it doesnt happen like that.

In the past barristers have quoted hansard and judges have said hang on it isnt about what they think they were voting for but what actually they voted for.

here the law is I say in the ancient act you say no so I say well what is the Law then? what dictates my zone? where are its boundaries? I say 5 miles from the post office what do you say?

Wharfie

The Court of Appeal judge looked at the old version of the Act - from the wording it was clear that any license granted was for the whole of the area within the 'prescribed distance' - they could not grant it for a smaller area, because the wording of the Act clearly did not allow for this.

The wording in the updated Act is less clear - it was argued that it meant that it only referred to the fact that the licensors could issue licenses within the area, and didn't mean that they could only issue licenses that covered the whole area.

So the judge looked back and decided that the amendment was just intended to change the description of the area in question (ie from a 'prescribed distance' to the borough area), to that extent it could not mean that they could then grant licenses for specific areas within the borough.

The most relevant part of the judgement is:

"For my part, I prefer the judge's construction of Section 37, particularly bearing in mind the history of the phrase now under consideration. In its original form the words read that the commissioners might "from time to time license to ply for hire within the prescribed distance"; I emphasise the last four words. An alternative to the prescribed distance was then given. It seems to me that those words "within the prescribed distance" did not relate - or certainly did not relate solely - to the jurisdictional area of the commissioners. They denoted where the hackney carriages, as they truly were at that time, could ply for hire. Those words were later replaced by the words "within any urban district", as Mr Wolfe emphasises. But I cannot accept that that alteration was intended to render the phrase solely a jurisdictional one rather than one dealing with the area where the vehicle could ply for hire."

Dusty

So I repeat the question from yesterday Wharfy, what is the text of the amended s.37 in the 1847 Act?

It must be in either Hyde or Button, surely?

Dusty

I have lent my book to a firm of solicitors localy dealing with one of my drivers.
Id love to look it up, let me have a look in the act.

Wharfie

Nuff said.

Apparently, the commissioners were discharged in 1847 and prescribed distance moved to within any urban district as councils took over the job

(so it beccomes 5 miles from the general post office with in -------------urban district)

(however the 1975 local government act saw abolition of many councils and creation of new ones)

then it goes to change in the 85 transport act, restriction by number

the misc prov act gives councils power to condition on grants unser 1847 act

but its deemed unlawfull to condition out ranks within a district, so when districts merged to a single council like ours that means we could use any rank within that district as long as its within 5 miles of the GPO, within the district, we merely cannot cross boundaries to another licensing district

surely?

Wharfie

nowthen SUSSEX WHAT ARE YOU DOING HOME EARLY?

case finished early

where do all these other emotions come from?
Wharfie

I'm very calm about this, really.

Dusty

From the soul Wharfy, from the soul!

If you mean the emoticons, then I'd only used one that wasn't on the list available to everyone when you post?

The other one was from my own personal little store.

Not that I'm being smug about it, or anything like that.

Dusty