Taxi Driver Online

THATS FOR THE GUYS RUNNING MINI BUSES FORGOT TO PUT THAT IN

I dont think anyone has a problem with legit PSVs.
It those that try to tell the VOSA that they have less than 9 seats, and the local council that they have more than 8.
If you are not one or the other, then apart from a very thin line of exemptions you are illegal.
And will their insurance cover illegal activities?

Just a further point add to your information and that is large companies can run ten per cent of their vehicles as 8 seaters without having to register them as private hire vehicles. Not many people know this.

Best wishes

JD

John,

Where did you get the 10% figure from? Has there been some case law on this?

I have it that you can run small PSVs if you are already an operator of large PSVs and the running of small PSVs forms "a minor part of your business"(Section 265 Transport Act 2000)

So, what if you run 60 Hackneys, two large PSVs? Does the 10% (or minor part), relate to the large PSVs you operate, or the whole of your "business"

As, under the latter interpretation one could run an additional 6 "small" PSVs.

I think 10% appears a bit high, but then how many vehicles is a small part.

If you run a large bus company with 10,000 buses, then 100 'illegal' PSVs running out of Manchester is a small part.

Another legislation mess made by this gov.

Another mess by this government? I think you forget which party was in power in 85.
Re the arbitrary figure of 10%, this has now become the rule of thumb, I have never seen it tested. It goes back to what I was saying elsewhere that we are being regulated by opinions that change from area to area instead of case law. I ask you how can 10% of unknown figure be meaningful?
Ged

As you probably know the 2000 act became law in 2001 and section 265 of that act closed a loophole in the 1981 public passenger vehicles act which allowed certain types of psv vehicles to perform the duties of a private hire vehcle. However sub section 3 of section 265 sub 79A allows large bus companies to have ten percent of their fleet as vehicles with 8 seats or less and need not be licensed as private hire vehicles.

You are quite right to ask why this is so? because when you read the legislation which I'm sure you have, it says nothing whatsoever about ten percent.

What it does say is this.

265. - (1) In section 79 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (which provides that a vehicle which is not a public service vehicle because of section 1(3) or (4) of that Act is to be treated as one for the purpose of excluding it from regulation as a private hire vehicle), for "1(3) or (4)" substitute "1(4)".

(2) After that section insert-

"Small PSVs subject to regulation as private hire vehicles. 79A. - (1) If a small bus is being provided for hire with the services of a driver for the purpose of carrying passengers otherwise than at separate fares, it is not to be regarded as a public service vehicle for the purpose of-

(a) Part II of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, or
(b) any local Act applying in any area in England and Wales which regulates the use of private hire vehicles provided for hire with the services of a driver for the purpose of carrying passengers and excludes public service vehicles from the scope of that regulation.
(2) If a small bus is being made available with a driver to the public for hire for the purpose of carrying passengers otherwise than at separate fares, it is not to be regarded as a public service vehicle for the purpose of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998.

(3) But subsection (1) or (2) does not apply where the vehicle is being so provided or made available in the course of a business of carrying passengers by motor vehicles all but a small part of which involves the operation of large buses.

(4) In this section-

"small bus" means a public service vehicle within paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 1 of this Act; and
"large buses" means public service vehicles within paragraph (a) of that subsection."

(3) In section 167(4) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (touting for hire car services: defence in case of public service vehicles), for "passengers for public service vehicles" substitute "passengers to be carried at separate fares by public service vehicles".

End:

If you concentrate on sub section 3 you will see how ambigous this section is. I interpret the legislation differently than VOSA. However, although section three does not mention specificaly ten per cent here is how VOSA interpret it.

After speaking with VOSA at some length a few weeks ago, I was told that their legal departments interpretation of Sub section 3, is that "Ten percent" is a small enough number to comply with the current legislation, namely sub section 3. This ten percent interpretation is applied as a matter of fact and VOSA internal documentation make reference to this as being as how in "THEIR" opinion the law should be applied.

There is no pretence on their part that the legislation is not ambigous but as I was told then by VOSA and I now tell you, that until such time this section is contested in the Courts the Ten percent interpretation By VOSA shall remain in force.

I hope that clears up any missunderstanding as to sub section three and what the minor implications mean for the Taxi trade.

For those interested in Airport Carz it should be known that they have 40 licences registered with the North West Transport Authority. Which in effect would allow them to run ten percent of their vehicles at 8 seats or less without the need of PHV licence.

Best wishes

John Davies

Cheers John, most helpfull.

So, we take ten percent as "the rule"

Now, a Taxi company operating say 30 taxis, and in addition has 12 PSV licences registered, can operate ten percent small PSVs being:

1. 1 x small PSV (as 10% of its large PSV fleet)

Or:

2. 4 x small PSVs (as 10% of its overall "passenger carrying" fleet)?

Or:

3. Ten percent of its passenger carrying fleet where 12 large PSVs are operated, along with 20 Special Restricted dual-licensed Taxi/PSv vehicles operating under separate fares (some of the time).

I really hate this subject.

However if Geds mates are getting the VOSA to take the Manchester issue forward, then there must be a good reason for it.
Hopefully some clarity will come out of it.

_________________
IDFIMH

Yes Ten percent is the rule, there is no ambiguity. That is how this section of the act is being applied.

If section three effects any operator here, then I suggest they contact Leeds and get clarification on any matter they have concerns about.



A company with ten vehicles over 8 seats would be allowed to have one vehicle at 8 seats or under, without having to obtain a private hire vehicle license. However I draw your attention to the wording in Sub section 3 which states.

3) But subsection (1) or (2) does not apply where the vehicle is being so provided or made available in the course of a business of carrying passengers by motor vehicles all but a small part of which involves the operation of large buses.

This section needs very carefull study because although there are different types of psv licences such as those that carry passengers at seperate fares and those that dont. It would appear that an element in this section refers to a company that runs a service which only a small part of which involves the use of large buses.

If you consider that Airportcarz are allowed to have ten percent of these types of vehicles then you can make your own judgement as to how it would apply to your own company.

The question of whether the company concerned could only use these vehicles to run as a bus at seperate fares, escapes me.

We discussed many points and the finite detail of this particular point is no longer fresh in my memory. It may be that these vehicles can run at both seperate fares and fixed fares but I'm afraid that is a point you will have to confirm with Leeds.

I have no further plans to contact Leeds and in any case as I have said many times before, there are others in this forum such as yourself that have a far greater knowledge of this issue than I.

Best wishes.

JD

Sussex,
Although we have a date I am not really holding my breath. John confirms my point that they are interpreting the law, which does not state a figure,
to be 10%. The question needs asking why 10% ? whats wrong with 5%? some may argue for 15% but that then becomes harder to work out.
The latest outrage is that on Terminal 2 at our place, our friends decided that enough work was not going their way so they erected a sign bearing the legend "taxi" in red followed by a tiny "bus" so small that it cannot be seen from more than a couple of feet away. The obvious intention is to mislead.
This begs the question are they trying to provoke a reaction from us, and who exactly do we complain to? Oft, police, airport or the licensing at the Town Hall.
I smell a rat.
Ged

I think the taxi sign is down to your council.

Inviting customers to think that an un-licensed mini-bus is a taxi, is an offence under the 1847 Act.

If the bloke on the 'clapham omnibus' thinks a taxi sign means a taxi for hire, when it points to something other than a taxi, it could also be a trading standards issue.

I think its time your council got its fingers out of its bum and sorted out all this mess.
If they dont want vehiocles licensed then let them say.

many airports have Private Hire companies paying the airport to have an exclusive presence at a desk by arrivals. these desks invariably have the word TAXI above them, a flagrant breach of rudimentary licensing regs. these operators do not have any TAXIs, only private hire vehicles.

My point? If local authorities, trading standards etc are content to let this happen, why dont the rest of us go and stand by arrivals on a quiet day with a sign saying TAXI and lap it up?.....Because we know its wrong!