Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Thu Apr 30, 2026 11:07 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 10:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 8:57 pm
Posts: 123
Location: Cannock Chase
My understanding of the law is that this is permitted provided the driver is licensed as a HC/PH driver by the same local authority as the licensed vehicle and is wearing his badge. I have read Yates versus Gates 1970 and it is only unlicensed drivers who may not drive a licensed vehicle for either hire and reward or social and domestic purposes.

I mention this because my local authority, Cannock Chase District Council are running their own consultation on changes to HC/PH licensing conditions and one of the proposals is to refuse to license a vehicle if its insurance policy document carries the words "for social and domestic purposes." The licensing department have claimed for some time that such use is "illegal" even for a licensed driver and wish to stamp out an "illegal practice" by making it, er, "illegal."

They have not mentioned any public interest element behind this proposal, presumably because there isn't one. I suspect it is a face-saving and vindictive response to disputes that we have effectively won, having taken legal advice over the removal of roof lights to prevent them from being stolen or to prevent members of the public trying to hire the vehicle when drivers are off duty.

I also suspect that there may be an element of "the green-eyed monster" on the part of at least one particular licensing officer who perhaps hates to see a mere humble taxi driver driving a shiny new car licensed as a taxi when used to take the family out, for example. We can be fairly certain that the source of this proposal is the licensing unit not any member of the public, trade or an elected councillor.

I also suspect that Cannock Chase is the only local authority in the UK to interpret case law in such an onerous, petty and vindictive fashion in this regard.

Comments?

_________________
Steve.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 10:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:58 pm
Posts: 3568
Location: Plymouth
Yes, they're barmy.

A licensed driver can use the vehicle for SDP - but he can't let his/her significant other - behind the wheel at any time.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 10:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 8:57 pm
Posts: 123
Location: Cannock Chase
That's what I thought. I have spoken to Mr Antony Schiller, the NPHA solicitor from Dennings LLP and he agrees.

Anyway, here is the consultation document for the incredulous amongst you....

http://www.cannockchasedc.gov.uk/downlo ... ire_policy

Page 25, proposal no. 2.

_________________
Steve.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:58 pm
Posts: 3568
Location: Plymouth
:lol: :lol: :lol: Yep - totally Barmy. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hope you have pointed out their lunacy.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:44 pm
Posts: 10591
Location: Scotland
Isn't it strange how there seams to be several councils trying to change the rules just when the LC is about to pounce

I had a LMFA moment, when I read drivers cannot use those electronic fags. :lol: ](*,)
They also have a point system now deemed illegal by the Cardiff judgment.

There rules could be made into a comedy sketch, its almost as good as the one used for Mrs Browns boys :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 8:15 pm
Posts: 9170
Chris the Fish wrote:
Yes, they're barmy.

A licensed driver can use the vehicle for SDP - but he can't let his/her significant other - behind the wheel at any time.


I can..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 20130
bloodnock wrote:
Chris the Fish wrote:
Yes, they're barmy.

A licensed driver can use the vehicle for SDP - but he can't let his/her significant other - behind the wheel at any time.


I can..

So canI. :wink:

_________________
Grandad,


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 8:15 pm
Posts: 9170
You would be hard pushed to find a policy without SDP written into it, You can drive a PC or a hack without wearing your badge for your own use or unpaid use...you can even drive clients without wearing your badge, just don't expect to get paid though as they have the right not to pay if your daft enough to be caught badgeless.

Is Cannock Chase some kind of off shore dependency that does'nt need to conform to mainland law.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:44 pm
Posts: 10591
Location: Scotland
SWMBO can drive mine as her insurance covers her to drive any vehicle with the owners permission, sign into the boot and of she goes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 8:15 pm
Posts: 9170
skippy41 wrote:
SWMBO can drive mine as her insurance covers her to drive any vehicle with the owners permission, sign into the boot and of she goes


Hows that work..dont matter where the sign is it's still a Licenced vehicle, 24/7/365.?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:45 pm 
If someone says you can't SD&P use the car then don't forget to NOT take a % off for personal use when returning your tax forms.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 8:57 pm
Posts: 123
Location: Cannock Chase
Quote:
. They also have a point system now deemed illegal by the Cardiff judgment.


This isn't actually true for Cannock Chase. There is a points system in neighbouring Stafford. They have something worse than that - licensing officers have delegated powers to issue suspension notices without a Licensing Committee hearing even for offences that do not require the suspension to take immediate effect in the interests of public safety. Between July 2007 and July 2009 they issued 80 such suspensions, that's one every 8 days. There were just over 300 licensed drivers in the district by the end of the above two-year period so that is a suspension issued for one in four drivers, all without any kind of fair hearing beyond a decision made by no more than three unelected council officials working in the same department. I think you could call that a rubber stamp job.

We have attempted to challenge the above policy on Human Rights grounds, citing Article Six of the ECHR. They claim that the right of appeal within 21 days disengages the suspension process from the ECHR right to a fair hearing and the presumption of innocence, despite the fact that there is no presumption of innocence on appeal and the obvious problem of chronology - the fair hearing is supposed to take place BEFORE the notice is issued. :D

In the consultation document above they now claim that a committee hearing could "erode" the 21 day notice period accompanying the right of appeal. The Licensing Committee suspends the licence, then and only then the 21-day clock begins to tick.

You couldn't make it up, except that they already have. :D They disregard Stockton v Latif 2009 and the fact that the suspension notice period is fixed at 21 days despite the fact that I sent a link of the above case law to the Head of Service, a Mr Steve Shilvock in 2010 and he acknowledged it.

_________________
Steve.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 8:57 pm
Posts: 123
Location: Cannock Chase
Quote:
Is Cannock Chase some kind of off shore dependency that does'nt need to conform to mainland law.


There is definitely a perception that Cannock Chase District is some kind of renegade fiefdom on the part of the licensing unit imho. I said as much in my initial response to the consultation document:

Quote:
. Dear Mr Shilvock,

I have now had sight of the above document and it has been agreed with other members of the trade that a meeting will be held to determine our views on the proposed changes. It is intended to divide the proposals into four categories:

GREEN: We agree wholeheartedly with the proposals. YELLOW: Some members of the trade may have expressed concerns and we therefore may seek minor amendments.

ORANGE: We have concerns and are seeking legal advice. RED: At least one member of the trade will appeal in court against such change in the event of it being passed by the council.

It is with regret that I personally have already flagged two proposals as RED:-

1) The requirement that the use of licensed vehicles for social and domestic purposes be removed from the wording of our insurance policy documents. There is neither a legal nor a public interest basis for this proposal and therefore I personally would take the council to court on this matter.

You state that there is case law supporting this proposal. Could you please cite the relevant case law?

Furthermore, the Law Commission has recently published its own consultation document for proposed changes to primary legislation. In that document it is stated that licensed Hackney Carriage and Private Hire vehicles should continue to be allowed to be used privately, i.e. for social and domestic purposes but the onus would be on the driver to demonstrate that this is so in the event of enforcement.

I am the only person insured to drive my Hackney Carriage vehicle and this is because my wife does not hold a HC/PH driver's licence. When we go on holiday we take her vehicle as we wish to share the driving. However, on occasion when I am at home, although I have access to my wife's vehicle, I do use my HC vehicle for private use on as is permitted by my insurance policy. When this is so I always wear my HC/PH driver's badge in a manner that it is plainly and distinctly visible just as I do when the vehicle is being used for Hire and Reward.

Yates versus Gates 1970 states that a HC vehicle can only be driven by a licensed driver and that it cannot change its status from moment to moment in order that an unlicensed driver may use the vehicle for private purposes, even if he is the proprietor of said vehicle. This case law does NOT prohibit the use of HC vehicles for social and domestic purposes. It only requires that the driver of a HC vehicle always be licensed as a HC driver regardless of the status of use.

It is my view that this proposal is gratuitous, vindictive, is devoid of any public interest element and therefore serves no purpose. I would therefore appeal in the magistrates' court against this condition on this basis. Note also that Cannock Chase Council would likely be unique in imposing such a condition. I take this opportunity to remind you that Cannock Chase is a District within the United Kingdom and not some renegade fiefdom.

2) The requirement that in future all HC vehicles would have to be Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles. You may wish to consider why the government abandoned proposals to make this law by this year. The reason is that WAVs discriminate against the majority of disabled people who are not wheelchair-bound and who may find it difficult to step up into a WAV given its greater ground clearance. I suspect that this is simply the mealy-mouthed agenda of reintroducing mixed fleets of PH and HC vehicles rearing its ugly head.

I have just spoken to Mr Schiller [NPHA solicitor] and we are now in agreement that an appeal hearing before the courts would be inevitable in the event of the two proposals above being implemented by the council on the basis that these proposals are neither reasonable, necessary nor in the public interest.

Please note that the above objections are my own personal statement and this is not necessarily the view of the trade as a whole at this stage.

Yours sincerely,

Steven Toy.

_________________
Steve.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 8:57 pm
Posts: 123
Location: Cannock Chase
grandad wrote:
bloodnock wrote:
Chris the Fish wrote:
Yes, they're barmy.

A licensed driver can use the vehicle for SDP - but he can't let his/her significant other - behind the wheel at any time.


I can..

So canI. :wink:


It does help when your SO is also licensed...

_________________
Steve.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 8:15 pm
Posts: 9170
Quote:
It does help when your SO is also licensed


Aye, it also gives them special rights to advise you on things whether you ask for it or not.. #-o


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 180 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group