Taxi Driver Online :: View topic - Breach of Intended Use Policy

Town Police Clauses Act 1847
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

1. Introduction
1.1 This policy has been written in response to the High Court Judgement and
Declaration made in the case of Newcastle City Council v Berwick – Upon –
Tweed Borough Council 2008 concerning the use of hackney carriages licensed
by one authority being used wholly, or for a substantial period of time as private
hire vehicles in the areas of other local authorities.

1.2 The major purpose behind the 1847 Act and the 1976 Act is the safety of the
public. Thus the scheme of legislation is directed towards having safe vehicles, fit
and proper drivers and appropriate conditions of hire. It was decided by
Parliament that licensing should be dealt with locally rather than nationally.

1.3 If hackney carriages are working remote from their licensing authority a number
of potentially undesirable consequences follow. The licensing authority will not
easily keep their licensed fleet under observation. It will be carrying out its
enforcement powers from a distance. The licensing authority where the hackney
carriage has chosen to operate will have no enforcement powers over the vehicle
although it is being used in their area.

1.4 It is therefore normally desirable for an authority issuing licences to hackney
carriages to be able to restrict the issuing of those licences to proprietors and
drivers which are intending to ply for hire in that authority’s area. Similarly it is
desirable to be able to refuse to issue a licence to proprietors and drivers who do
not intend to ply for hire, to a material extent, in the area of the licence grantor.

Author:	captain cab [ Tue Apr 12, 2016 12:34 pm ]
Post subject:	Breach of Intended Use Policy
Extract from Copeland Breach of Intended Use Policy The Panel were informed that the Council had adopted an Intended Use Policy for hackney carriage vehicles in 2013. The effect of the Intended Use Policy is that all applicants for hackney carriage vehicle licences have as part of the application to complete a form stating where the vehicle is used. If it is clear that the vehicle will not/is not operating to a material extent in Copeland’s area there is a presumption that the application will be refused or in the case where a licence has been granted that the licence will be revoked although each case will be treated on its own merits. I t was reported that the major reason for implementing the Intended Use Policy was to ensure public safety. The following breaches of the Intended Use Policy were heard by the Panel: - (1) (EMA) had been granted a hackney carriage vehicle licence on 22nd April 2015 on the basis that although living outside the area it was intended that the vehicle would be used predominantly or entirely within Copeland’s area. The licence holder had sent a letter stating that he was unable to attend the Panel meeting because his wife was ill and he had children to look after. RESOLVED – (a) That in the interest of fairness because EMA had not been able to present his case and had given a reason for this that the matter be adjourned to a future meeting of the Panel for the licence holder to attend. (b) That EMA be informed that if he does not attend this meeting of the Panel the case will be heard in his absence. (2) (AG) had been granted a hackney carriage vehicle licence on 11th March 2015 on the basis that although living outside the area it was intended that the vehicle would be used predominantly or entirely within Copeland’s area. The licence holder attended the meeting to present his case. He said he needed the vehicle licence to earn a living and support his family. The Council’s Enforcement Officer stated that enquiries had revealed the vehicle had not been seen in Copeland’s area. When asked why a licence had not been obtained from Manchester AG stated that Manchester City Council would not licence him for three years because of convictions and that to obtain a licence in Manchester was expensive. AG said he could move to Copeland in June 2016 when his collage course was finished. RESOLVED – That the hackney carriage vehicle licence be revoked because (a) The Panel was satisfied that the vehicle was not being used predominantly or entirely within Copeland’s area and that there was therefore a breach of the Intended Use Policy. (b) The Council adopted the Intended Use Policy on the grounds of public safety. If vehicles licensed by Copeland are operating outside Copeland’s area it means the vehicle cannot be effectively monitored to ensure that they are safe for the public. (c) (AG) has signed a declaration to say that he did intend to use the vehicle predominantly or entirely within Copeland’s area. (3) (MM) was granted a hackney carriage vehicle licence on 24th March 2014 which expired on 23rd March 2015. The licence was subsequently renewed and expires on 20th March 2016. (MM) did not attend the Panel meeting and the Panel decided to hear the case in absence. The Panel considered the Intended Use Policy and the declaration made by (MM). The Council’s enforcement officer stated that enquiries had revealed that the hackney carriage vehicle had not been seen in Copeland’s area. RESOLVED - (a) The Panel was satisfied that the vehicle was not being used predominantly or entirely within Copeland’s area and that there was therefore a breach of the Intended Use Policy. (b) The Council adopted the Intended Use Policy on the grounds of public safety. If vehicles licensed by Copeland are operating outside Copeland’s area it means the vehicle cannot be effectively monitored to ensure that they are safe for the public. (c) (MM) has signed a declaration to say that he did intend to use the vehicle predominantly or entirely within Copeland’s area. (4) (JGO) was granted a hackney carriage vehicle licence on 4th August 2015 and this expires on 3rd August 2016. (JGO) had made a declaration that he did not intend to use the vehicle predominantly or entirely within Copeland’s area. Nevertheless the Intended Use Policy states that there will be a presumption against granting, renewal or the revocation of a licence if the vehicle is not operating to a material extent in Copeland’s area. (JGO) attended the Panel meeting to give his case as to why there were exceptional circumstances his hackney carriage vehicle licence should not be revoked. (JGO) stated the following: -  The vehicle was intended to be used in Manchester  Finance was required to but the vehicle and if the licence was revoked then there would be no way of making the finance payments  JGO had been given a P45 for a job as a security guard so the hackney carriage was the only source of income for his family  That an application had been made for a licence in Manchester but there was a three months delay and that when the Copeland licence had been granted the Manchester application had been withdrawn. JGO stated several times that he was willing to do whatever was required to keep the licence including loving to and operating the vehicle in Copeland’s area. The Council’s enforcement officer stated that enquiries had revealed that the hackney carriage vehicle had not been seen in Copeland’s area. The Panel considered the Intended Use Policy, the declaration made by (JGO) and his statement of case and RESOLVED – that the hackney carriage vehicle licence be not revoked provided JGO operate the hackney carriage vehicle predominantly in Copeland’s area within the next three months and continues to so operate the hackney carriage vehicle. If this does not happen there is a presumption that the hackney carriage vehicle licence will be revoked. (5) (SKA) was granted a hackney carriage vehicle licence on 30th September 2015 for 1 year this has been renewed and expires on 29th September 2016. SKA had made a declaration that he did not intend to use the vehicle predominantly or entirely in Copeland’s area. Nevertheless the Intended Use Policy adopted by the Council states that there will be a presumption against the granting, renewal or the revocation of a licence if the vehicle is not used to a material extent in Copeland’s area. SKA did not attend the Panel meeting and the Panel decided to hear the case in his absence. The Council’s Enforcement Officer said enquiries had revealed that the vehicle had not been seen in Copeland’s area except for one occasion when the vehicle had been in the area to undergo the Council’s six monthly test. The Panel considered the Intended Use Policy and the declaration and the information from the Council’s Enforcement Officer and RESOLVED – That the hackney carriage vehicle licence be revoked because (a) The Panel was satisfied that the vehicle was not being used predominantly or entirely within Copeland’s area and that there was therefore a breach of the Intended Use Policy. (b) The Council adopted the Intended Use Policy on the grounds of public safety. If vehicles licensed by Copeland are operating outside Copeland’s area it means the vehicle cannot be effectively monitored to ensure that they are safe for the public

Author:	MR T [ Tue Apr 12, 2016 3:52 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Breach of Intended Use Policy
can we have this for the p/H as well...

Author:	Sussex [ Wed Apr 13, 2016 5:43 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Breach of Intended Use Policy
Very well done to those councillors and officials. It should send a very important message out to the drivers there, and hopefully councils elsewhere.

Author:	wannabeeahack [ Wed Apr 13, 2016 9:30 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Breach of Intended Use Policy
so is this "case law" ? what case was it ?

Author:	captain cab [ Wed Apr 13, 2016 9:32 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Breach of Intended Use Policy
wannabeeahack wrote: so is this "case law" ? what case was it ? Berwick Case

Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

Breach of Intended Use Policy http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28942	Page 1 of 2

Author:	mancityfan [ Wed Apr 13, 2016 9:59 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Breach of Intended Use Policy
captain cab wrote: wannabeeahack wrote: so is this "case law" ? what case was it ? Berwick Case Nidge will be pleased with all the Wolverhampton plates heading his way

Author:	mancityfan [ Wed Apr 13, 2016 10:23 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Breach of Intended Use Policy
And I think these are p/hire plates.

Author:	wannabeeahack [ Wed Apr 13, 2016 10:23 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Breach of Intended Use Policy
any link/date/names? in what court?

Author:	captain cab [ Wed Apr 13, 2016 10:49 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Breach of Intended Use Policy
wannabeeahack wrote: captain cab wrote: wannabeeahack wrote: so is this "case law" ? what case was it ? Berwick Case really? same council? surely not Have you been taking drugs this morning?

Author:	wannabeeahack [ Wed Apr 13, 2016 5:59 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Breach of Intended Use Policy
captain cab wrote: Have you been taking drugs this morning? answer the question or STFU t***

Author:	captain cab [ Wed Apr 13, 2016 6:30 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Breach of Intended Use Policy
wannabeeahack wrote: answer the question or STFU t*** those downers are a mare

Author:	wannabeeahack [ Wed Apr 13, 2016 6:37 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Breach of Intended Use Policy
if you google "Intended use policy" you will get a list of councils adding it into rules like North Warwickshire Quote: Town Police Clauses Act 1847 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 1. Introduction 1.1 This policy has been written in response to the High Court Judgement and Declaration made in the case of Newcastle City Council v Berwick – Upon – Tweed Borough Council 2008 concerning the use of hackney carriages licensed by one authority being used wholly, or for a substantial period of time as private hire vehicles in the areas of other local authorities. 1.2 The major purpose behind the 1847 Act and the 1976 Act is the safety of the public. Thus the scheme of legislation is directed towards having safe vehicles, fit and proper drivers and appropriate conditions of hire. It was decided by Parliament that licensing should be dealt with locally rather than nationally. 1.3 If hackney carriages are working remote from their licensing authority a number of potentially undesirable consequences follow. The licensing authority will not easily keep their licensed fleet under observation. It will be carrying out its enforcement powers from a distance. The licensing authority where the hackney carriage has chosen to operate will have no enforcement powers over the vehicle although it is being used in their area. 1.4 It is therefore normally desirable for an authority issuing licences to hackney carriages to be able to restrict the issuing of those licences to proprietors and drivers which are intending to ply for hire in that authority’s area. Similarly it is desirable to be able to refuse to issue a licence to proprietors and drivers who do not intend to ply for hire, to a material extent, in the area of the licence grantor.

Author:	Chris the Fish [ Wed Apr 13, 2016 7:58 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Breach of Intended Use Policy
wannabeeahack wrote: captain cab wrote: Have you been taking drugs this morning? Document answer the question or STFU t*** He did answer the question! The answer was "The Berwick Case!" Everyone else understood it Wannabeahack, but you seem to be struggling with it. As for your quote, it looks like an extract from any LA Polcy Document which has taken note of........ ........the Berwick case.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/