Taxi Driver Online

Basically mixing and matching.

If all three licenses are licensed in the same area as the address where the booking was taken, then everything is fine and dandy.

If not, then it's not.

_________________
IDFIMH

As per most stated cases

CC

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

5 Hirings accepted on behalf of another operator

(1) A London PHV operator (“the first operator”) who has in London accepted a private hire booking may not arrange for another operator to provide a vehicle to carry out that booking as sub-contractor unless—

(a) the other operator is a London PHV operator and the sub-contracted booking is accepted at an operating centre in London;

(b) the other operator is licensed under section 55 of the [1976 c. 57.] Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (in this Act referred to as “the 1976 Act”) by the council of a district and the sub-contracted booking is accepted in that district; or

(c) the other operator accepts the sub-contracted booking in Scotland.

(2) A London PHV operator who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(3) It is a defence in proceedings for an offence under this section for an operator to show that he exercised all due diligence to avoid committing such an offence.

(4) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (1) whether or not sub-contracting is permitted by the contract between the first operator and the person who made the booking.

(5) For the avoidance of doubt (and subject to any relevant contract terms), a contract of hire between a person who made a private hire booking at an operating centre in London and the London PHV operator who accepted the booking remains in force despite the making of arrangements by that operator for another contractor to provide a vehicle to carry out that booking as sub-contractor

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

IMO the above allows a London Operator to sub contract to his provincial counterparts, yet his provincial counterparts cannot return the favour.

Strange, I would have believed if we were going to have a PH act for London it should have been the same as the provinces......either that or the whole of the country?

CC

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

This is where it gets a bit of a big mess. Emails can be sent from anywhere. It's a open source, so how do you know where the booking was taken

Regards
Lee
As I am typing this on my phone in the vehcile on a lay by

I think JD would think I was being neglectful by not mentioning Bromsgrove vs. Powers;

Link to Bromsgrove vs. Powers!

Without going too deep into the case I highlight the following;

All such bookings were in fact sub-contracted, principally to Chauffeur Express, but also to two other Operators - one of which was within the boundaries of the Council, and the other within the boundaries of Stratford on Avon District Council. Mr Powers held s 55 licences in both districts.

The Council accepted that no impropriety would be committed when Mr Powers subcontracted within the boundaries of the Council.

(x) The Council refused Mr Powers' application for renewal of his s 55 Private Hire Operator's Licence on the ground that he was not operating (as Barnt Green Cars) in accordance with the Act because he was only permitted under such a licence to make use of vehicles and drivers licensed in the same District (ie the Council's). By operating as a Private High Operator licensed by the Council, but making use of vehicles and drivers' licences issued in another District Council, Mr Powers was not acting in accordance with s 46(1)(e) of the Act."

further on explains what Mr Powers was doing;

Ms Parry submits that, because the vehicles and drivers were not provided by Mr Powers but by a subcontracting operator, he did not operate the vehicles for the purposes of s 46(1)(e). The justices appear to have accepted this submission but with two provisos: namely (1) that Mr Powers was not the owner of the vehicles used to fulfil the bookings; and (2) that the vehicles and drivers used to fulfil the bookings were licensed by another controlled district.

CC

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

The summary of that case is as follows and by coincidence the Murtagh prosecution followed 12 months later by the same council for the same thing.
_________________________

BROMSGROVE DISTRICT COUNCIL v POWER (1998)

Ch D (Dyson J) 16/7/98

LICENSING - LOCAL GOVERNMENT

PRIVATE HIRE OPERATOR'S LICENCE : LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1976

The magistrates had wrongly concluded that the council was not entitled to refuse to renew private hire operator's licence.

Appellant's appeal by way of case stated from the magistrates' decision that "operate" in s.80(2) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 meant to make provision for bookings, and not to provide vehicles or drivers.

The respondent held a private hire operator's licence issued by the appellant under s.55 of the Act in whose district he traded as BGC. He also held a private hire operator's licence issued by the neighbouring district council, where he traded as CE. CE also held a number of vehicle licences under s.48 of the Act and the drivers it employed held drivers' licences under s.51.

Since there were no vehicle or driver licences issued by the appellant in respect of BGC the respondent took bookings in the appellant's area, and sub-contracted the work to, inter alia, CE. Subsequently the appellant refused to renew the respondent's private hire operator's licence under s.55 because he was making use of vehicles and drivers licence by another district and thus was not acting in accordance with s.46(1)(e) which provided that "no person ... shall in a controlled district operate any vehicle as a private hire vehicle (i) if a current vehicle licence under the said s.48 is not in force; or (ii) if the driver does not have a current licence under the said s.51".

The magistrates allowed the appeal on the ground that to "operate" meant to make provision for bookings, not to provide vehicles or drivers, and therefore the respondent did not need to have vehicle and drivers' licences to accompany his operator's licence provided he was not the owner of the vehicles used and that they, and the drivers, were properly licenced elsewhere. On that basis it was concluded that the respondent had not therefore been operating incorrectly and that the appellant was not entitled to refuse to renew his licence.

The appellant appealed by way of case stated contending that since the respondent did "operate" as defined in s.80(2) he must also have "operated" for the purposes of s.46(1)(e).

HELD: The wording and vocabulary of s.46(1)(e) of the Act was clear and could not bear the meaning that to "operate" did not include the provision of the drivers and vehicles. That conclusion was confirmed by the underlying regulatory purpose of the Act which was to provide protection to members of the public who wished to be conveyed as passengers in a motor car provided by a private hire organisation with a driver. Parliament had clearly intended the onus of responsibility for the welfare of passengers to be on the operator not the person who provided the vehicle and driver.

Appeal allowed.

John McGuiness instructed by the Legal Services, Bromsgrove District Council, for the appellant. Sian Parry instructed by Kearns & Co, Swansea, for the respondent.
____________________

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

knew you couldnt resist

regards

CC

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

And the summary in the case of Rendell.
___________________

EAST STAFFORDSHIRE BOROUGH COUNCIL v RENDELL (1995)

DC (Simon Brown LJ, Sedley J) 3/11/95

LOCAL GOVERNMENT - LICENSING - TRANSPORT

PRIVATE HIRE CARS AND HACKNEY CARRIAGES

A private hire car operator commits an offence by redirecting phone calls from his place of business in the district in which he is licensed to operate to premises in a district in which he is not licensed.

Council's appeal against acquittal of the holder of a private hire car operator's licence of operating in contravention of s.46(1)(d) Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 by redirecting his calls from the controlled district for which he was licensed to a telephone in another district where he was not licensed.

HELD: An offence was committed and the appeal would be allowed.

Christopher Kinch instructed by Sharpe Prictchard for the appellant council. Jason Galbraith-Marten instructed by Batesh Partnership, Manchester for the respondent
_______________________

Case law is quite compelling when it comes to passing work from one operator to another when not licensed by the same authority. However there is no restriction on a licensed operator having a contract with any operator in the uk but what might be the legal constraints on that contract?

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

Is this only for telephone exchange, as I said before the New Technology Communications can be sent and receive anywhere

And I do not know where the original booking was made in a area, heck it could be made in my area ... there’s no way, as it’s in a cloud

regards l

An operator can only make provision for the acceptance of bookings in the area for which they are licensed. That means the premises for which the operators license is in force.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

Its where the booking is accepted.....the law is blind or so they say.

However, as JD (for his many sins) has suggested, is the acceptance of a booking and then passing on to a sub contractor operator legal?

I think not, given bromsgrove vs. powers, and the shanks case.

But it is a very worthy question.

And given the fact many LA's dont know, even worthier!

IMO this question is bigger than Berwick.

CC

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

yes its a big worthy question

there's is nothing said about the New Technology

you can have a staff working from home which could be outside your license area answer your phone from your office or premises for which the operator license is in force.

its just a big mess

companys that don't need a o license can sub contract out , but the ones with o license can't ... its so silly

thanks l

Errm IMO you cant have staff working outside the area

CC

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