captain cab wrote:
There have been rumours abound that wheelchair bound passengers when phoning for cabs have been told that none are available.
It is not against the law to tell a customer "there are no cabs available" but it is against the law for an operator to refuse a booking on the grounds that the person is blind and accompanied by a dog or have some other dissability. There is no law that states a driver has to respond to any particular call but there is a law, which states he cannot discriminate against a person on the grounds of their disability once he has accepted the booking. If a hackney driver feels a job is uneconomical either through distance or other factors then I'm sure they won't go out of their way to undertake such a job.
Quote:
With no requirement to keep records this could obviously go on forever, if records were checked the LA could inspect records to see what vehicles were doing jobs at a particular time.
By looking at the records how precisely would the LA determine that an operator had discriminated against a disabled person? I think we would all be intrigued to know how an LA can prove discrimination from a booking sheet?
The LA can inspect as many records as it likes but how would it be able to determine if someone was being discriminated against? The first point of contact would be the operator and if he was busy and had a backlog of work then he is quite entitled to tell any customer that no vehicles are available. Obviously the scenario you paint must come from an authority that doesn't have all wav vehicles because in many places such as Manchester, Liverpool and London etc the situation would never arise.
The goalposts on this amendment of yours have been moved on numerous occasions and as yet you haven't offered a reasonable argument as to why it should be implemented? The more scrutiny we apply leads to the increasing exposure of the frailties in the amendment. It has come to the point that you now suggest that such reform is needed because of a "rumour" you heard regarding an incident, or incidents, where a disabled passenger may have been refused a Taxi? Perhaps the LA should make all vehicles mandatory wav or the persons affected should contact the council with a specific complaint.
Is it your wish to place an extra financial burden on every licensed hackney carriage driver in the UK of some 100 pounds every couple of years just because of a "rumour" about disabled access in this so far unnamed LA? I hardly think you would win first prize in a popularity contest with UK Taxi drivers if you put that idea forward?
We have explored the many pitfalls of your amendment but so far you have failed to come up with one reasonable argument as to why a greater burden should be placed on Taxi drivers.
You failed to get around the burden such an amendment would place on every cab driver in the country that takes a private booking. Even though your amendment is well meaning it will place hackney drivers in the same boat as a private hire vehicle operator because it places a requirement on everyone who takes a booking to be licensed.
You would like the amendment to apply to hackney carriage Radio circuit operators only but that is easier said than done? You need to alter more of the act than the amendments you inserted below in order for them to work and have some clarity. I don't believe there is a solution because a booking is a booking regardless of whether it comes over the telephone or verbal contact on the street?
Your amendment would criminalise the taking of bookings without the necessary license, which at present is perfectly legal. Except in the case of private hire drivers?
Remember the wording in the act?
Sec 46D. No person shall in a controlled district "operate" any vehicle as a private hire vehicle without having a current licence under section 55 of this Act:
"Operate" means in the course of business to make provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a private hire vehicle;
If you removed the words private hire as you suggested your amendment would probably read as follows with a possible additional interpretation following on from that.
No person shall in a controlled district "operate" any hackney carriage vehicle without having a current licence under section 55A of this Act:
"Operate" for the purpose of sec 55A means in the course of business to make provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a hackney carriage vehicle
Alternately you could have this:
No hackney carriage radio circuit operator shall in a controlled district "operate" any hackney carriage or private hire vehicle without having a current licence under section 55 and 55A of this Act:
"Operate" in respect of hackney carriages means any radio circuit operator in the course of business that makes provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a hackney carriage vehicle:
Then you are going to have to define the exemptions which apply to individual hackney carriage drivers taking bookings and redefine the meaning of "operate" and also define the meaning of "Hackney a carriage radio circuit".
55 (a)
Licensing of 'Hackney Carriage Radio Circuits' (1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, a district council shall, on receipt of an application from any person for the grant to that person of a licence to operate a 'Hackney Carriage Radio Circuit' grant to that person a 'Hackney Carriage Radio Circuit' license:
Provided that a district council shall not grant a licence unless they are satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a 'Hackney Carriage Radio Circuit' licence.
56 (a) Operators of 'Hackney Carriage Radio Circuits'
(1) For the purposes of this Part of this Act every pre booked contract for the hire of a Hackney Carriage under this Part of this Act shall be deemed to be made with the operator who accepted the booking for that vehicle whether or not he himself provided the vehicle.
(2) Every person to whom a licence in force under section 55 (a) of this Act has been granted by a district council shall keep a record in such form as the council may, by condition attached to the grant of the licence, prescribe and shall enter therein, before the commencement of each journey, such particulars of every booking of a Hackney Carriage invited or accepted by him, whether by accepting the same from the hirer or by undertaking it at the request of another operator, as the district council may by condition prescribe and shall produce such record on request to any authorised officer of the council or to any constable for inspection.
(3) Every person to whom a licence in force under section 55 (a) of this Act has been granted by a district council shall keep such records as the council may, by condition attached to the grant of the licence, prescribe of the particulars of any Hackney Carriage operated by him and shall produce the same on request to any authorised officer of the council or to any constable for inspection.
(4) A person to whom a licence in force under section 55 (a) of this Act has been granted by a district council shall produce the licence on request to any authorised officer of the council or any constable for inspection.
(5) If any person without reasonable excuse contravenes the provisions of this section, he shall be guilty of an offence.
…………………………………………
Its alright trying to insert a clause such as yours but it goes a lot further than that, you have to consider every other section that needs changing because of the impact your clause has on other sections especially section 46 D.
The main reason for retaining records is that which I offered up in respect of serious harm inflicted on passengers by drivers and being able to identify the vehicle through records. However, as the judge in Gladden said, it is up to local authorities to implement such conditions by way of by laws or a change of law if possible?
Perhaps you and I and everyone else should be advocating a code of best practice for Circuit operators instead of trying to change things in the way you want? I would think almost every medium sized operator records bookings these days.
To conclude I suggest in the interest of hackney carriage drivers your policy should be a code of practice for radio circuits but leave every hackney carriage driver to carry on as he does at the moment without any additional burdens that your amendment might present.
Regards
JD
Login
Register
FAQ
