From the very first day cross-border issues were tested by local authorities in the Courts, briefly
those cases include Dittah -v- Choudhry, Top Cars -v- Windsor, Powers -v- Bromsgrove, East
Staffordshire -v- Rendell, Murtagh -v- Bromsgrove, and Shanks (Blue Line) -v- North
Tyneside. All these cases have, since the first, followed the same pattern of determination. It may
well be that that is because a number of these have been heard by the same Judge; or it may just
be that the first decision was of sufficient gravitas to ensure the same result came forward each time
these matters came to Court.
However, the fact remains that the overall decision of the Courts has been that it is unlawful for a
private hire operator to sub-contract work across borders, whatever the circumstances of the initial
contract. The initial view held in Choudhry and Dittah, and upheld in all the cases since then, is that
once an operator's licence is issued, it is unlawful for that private hire operator to use any other
vehicle or driver than those licensed by the same authority; but that once so licensed, the car and
driver may be used to pick up and drop off anywhere in the country.
Thus in Choudhry and Dittah, the two operators - both licensed by Birmingham - were making use
in Birmingham of vehicles licensed by numerous other authorities: Solihull, Wolverhampton etc.
This was found to be unlawful, and this was the fundamental case which said that all the licences -
operator, vehicles and drivers - must match. This would permit sub-contracting amongst operators
licensed by the same authority as themselves, but not otherwise.
The Top Cars case: Mr Mahboob Khan, the proprietor of Top Cars, held an operator licence,
vehicle licences and driver licences all issued by Slough Borough Council. Windsor and
Maidenhead prosecuted Mr Khan, making a case that as he was not licensed by Windsor and
Maidenhead, he was not entitled to take work, or advertise for work, other than in Slough. Again,
the courts held that where the phone rang was where the operator licence needed to be issued and,
once issued, only Slough drivers and vehicles could be used; it did not matter where the service was
advertised or where the work emanated. Therefore Mr Khan was acquitted.
In the East Staffordshire case, Mr Rendell was wholly licensed by Derbyshire Dales. His partner
Mrs McCartin lived 50 yards away from him, but on the other side of a bridge which marked the
boundary between East Staffordshire and Derbyshire Dales. The two partners, McCartin and
Rendell, were in the habit in the daily course of their business of transferring their telephone line
between each other when they were out on a job. The courts held that transferring the line from
Derbyshire Dales to East Staffordshire without having an East Staffordshire operator licence, and
consequently vehicles and drivers also licensed by East Staffordshire, was unlawful.
In the case of Mr Powers, all his vehicles and his office were licensed in Stratford-upon-Avon, but
because this was not a 24-hour operation Mr Powers diverted his telephone number to his house
in Bromsgrove, and was therefore making a provision in Bromsgrove, for which he required an
operator licence. This worked fine, as long as Mr Powers had some vehicles licensed by
Bromsgrove. However, once he had got rid of those licences and concentrated on Stratford alone,
the council at Bromsgrove refused to renew his operator licence because under such licence he
could only use Bromsgrove licensed vehicles and drivers, and has he had none of those it was
inappropriate to give him a licence. His appeal against that decision failed.
In Murtagh -v- Bromsgrove Pat Murtagh, who was a senior
Magistrate, had a business on the border of Bromsgrove and Birmingham. She was wholly licensed
in Bromsgrove, but had nine freephones across the border in Birmingham. Birmingham City Council
maintained and insisted that those freephones had to be served by Birmingham licensed drivers and
vehicles. Acting under some pressure, Mrs Murtagh acceded to Birmingham's request to obtain an
operator licence from Birmingham, and licensed half her vehicles and drivers with Birmingham.
Birmingham and Bromsgrove then embarked on a squabble as to who had the right of it, with Mrs
Murtagh in effect being treated as pig in the middle. After some ten years Bromsgrove successfully
prosecuted Mrs Murtagh, who then promptly moved her entire operation into Birmingham.
The Shanks case is perhaps the final straw that breaks the camel's back on cross-border. Mr
Shanks, wishing to increase his business, opened an office in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. He held
operator licences, vehicle licences and driver licences for both Newcastle and North Tyneside, so
that his entire operation, like Mrs Murtagh's, was fully licensed. He even went to the trouble of
having business cards made which advised customers that he was fully licensed in both areas, and
because of that, customers could expect that from time to time Newcastle or North Tyneside
vehicles could be dispatched to fulfil bookings.
Not so, said North Tyneside; that is unlawful. As a North Tyneside licensed operator, he can only
use North Tyneside vehicles - and this, on trial, was indeed the decision of the Courts. This meant
that even a person who operated his own business from two centres could not even sub-contract
to himself across a licensing border.
|
