Cross Border Hiring, and why I believe it to be illegal...

wannabeeahack · **Posted:** Thu Jul 13, 2023 10:20 am

roythebus wrote:

Take the scenario, you get a booking to "the airport" 90 miles away. Just before you drop at the airport outside your area, you get a smoke signal from the office. Pick up at the airport, take. fare back to your area. You and I know it makes a loss-making job into a paying job as you're gettin paid for the return journey. You accept the job, thereby breaking the law according to your thinking.

no,your base is within your LA, no laws broken and besides.... who hasnt had RTURN bookings, if you cant do a return legally your all screwed, the back load you state may be prebooked, how would a driver know?

grandad · **Joined:** Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm **Posts:** 19652

wannabeeahack wrote:

roythebus wrote:

Take the scenario, you get a booking to "the airport" 90 miles away. Just before you drop at the airport outside your area, you get a smoke signal from the office. Pick up at the airport, take. fare back to your area. You and I know it makes a loss-making job into a paying job as you're gettin paid for the return journey. You accept the job, thereby breaking the law according to your thinking.

no,your base is within your LA, no laws broken and besides.... who hasnt had RTURN bookings, if you cant do a return legally your all screwed, the back load you state may be prebooked, how would a driver know?

But Wardy is saying that you have to be in your own district to accept the booking.

heathcote · **Joined:** Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:56 pm **Posts:** 2469

StuartW wrote:

Basic rule under settled law - a PHV can pick up and drop anywhere, as long as booking made through a licensed operator, and triple lock in place (ie operator, plate and badge issued by same council).

HC can do likewise, but can only ply for hire in area of local authority they are plated in. (And an all-HC circuit doesn't require an operator's licence.)

Where does it say a hackney carriage can do this.

Wardy · **Joined:** Sat Aug 05, 2017 12:08 am **Posts:** 20

grandad wrote:

wannabeeahack wrote:

roythebus wrote:

Take the scenario, you get a booking to "the airport" 90 miles away. Just before you drop at the airport outside your area, you get a smoke signal from the office. Pick up at the airport, take. fare back to your area. You and I know it makes a loss-making job into a paying job as you're gettin paid for the return journey. You accept the job, thereby breaking the law according to your thinking.

no,your base is within your LA, no laws broken and besides.... who hasnt had RTURN bookings, if you cant do a return legally your all screwed, the back load you state may be prebooked, how would a driver know?

But Wardy is saying that you have to be in your own district to accept the booking.

I certainly am saying that...

I have worked predominantly on airport jobs for the best part of 10 years since the trade got screwed with cross border and can honestly say that this example has happened twice during that time.

The needs of the many (drivers) outweigh the needs of the few....

Wardy · **Joined:** Sat Aug 05, 2017 12:08 am **Posts:** 20

grandad wrote:

Chris the Fish wrote:

This is what I see....

I take a passenger from my district into another district in my private hire car licensed in my district then this is OK.
Correct

If after dropping of my passenger I am approached by someone asking to take them to anywhere they obviously I can't do that because I can't accept bookings directly without them going through my operator.
Correct - Illegal Touting

However, this person has seen from the side of my car that we have an app and has downloaded the app and made a booking with my operator. This booking is dispatched to the nearest car which is me
You can take this job - it could be App, Phone, Text.....

but I am still out of my area so are you saying that I can't accept that job and I must return to my own area before I can accept another job
Incorrect - see the answer immediately above

and the company must dispatch a different driver to do that booking and that driver has to travel empty to the pick up area and I have to travel empty back to my area?
Incorrect

So Wardy has not got a leg to stand on with his argument.

I certainly do have a leg to stand on... it just doesnt suit your argument :-)

You are using a scenario that would possibly occur once in thousands of bookings, and that is simply not enough to warrant my argument to be false... sorry

Wardy · **Joined:** Sat Aug 05, 2017 12:08 am **Posts:** 20

Most of you are answering the question as I would expect, that this rule (if proved to be correct) would take away the potential of you getting a return booking from an area that you are dropping off in, and I get that...

BUT, the rules cannot be ambiguous and may cost us the occasional job, like 1 in 5000 (or more) jobs...

The biggest mischief is that of drivers from other areas working within the area that you are licensed, if that doesn't happen to you then fair play, but it happens in many other areas and has to stop.

This situation causes an over supply of drivers to the public demands, in turn the operators keep the prices low which the drivers suffer from.

Even if this doesn't happen in your area, have a mind for the drivers who are on rock bottom in areas of saturation.

The need of the many outweigh the need of the few....

StuartW · **Joined:** Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am **Posts:** 13919

Heathcote, presumably you're asking about HCs doing pre-booked work anywhere?

What's to stop that in the legislation? Wasn't that why lots of Berwick and Rossendale HCs were working hundreds of miles away, or why Lewes-plated HCs are working in Brighton for Uber?

Essentially, it's just an HC version of what Wolverhampton is doing with PHVs. Of course, councils can insert an intended use condition on HC licences, but I don't think there's any legal obligation to do so. But the DfT's draft best practice guidance stuff recommended intended use clauses. Don't know if it's actually in the current guidance and can't be bothered looking it up. But the point is that it's simply guidance and not compulsory

DfT draft best practice guidance wrote:

Intended use

Licensing authorities should require an applicant for a taxi driver licence to declare
that they intend to work predominately within the licensing authority’s area. The
residential address provided by the application should be considered in assessing
the likelihood of this declaration being adhered to when assessing an application for
a taxi driver licence.

Chris the Fish · **Posted:** Sat Jul 15, 2023 9:59 am

Wardy wrote:

I certainly do have a leg to stand on... it just doesnt suit your argument :-)

You are using a scenario that would possibly occur once in thousands of bookings, and that is simply not enough to warrant my argument to be false... sorry

You looked for input for or against at the beginning of the thread, and you have mostly against being posted in the discussion.

Currently I don't believe you have a "leg to stand on" with the standing Legislation and Court Precedent. But, if you want to test it, you certainly can. Lawyers for and against will be delighted to be paid to have an organised debate with a Judge supervising, then he or she will decide who wins.

What you do have is a point of view which would require a change of Legislation. My point of view on that (and I suspect most of the others who post on here) would come close to yours.

It is the nature of the beast that if you have 3 Taxi (or PH) Drivers, you will have 4 opinions. By the look of the Government Stats recently linked to by Sussex on another thread, about 22,000 would, by their licensing regime of choice, seem to be against you.

Is it time for new Legislation for both Trades? Of course it is. Will it happen? Doubt it, because we come far too low down in the priority list for Parliamentary time. Best that can be hoped for is continued tinkering by use of amendments to 1847, 1976, various bits of Traffic Acts, Public Health Acts, Discrimination Acts......

Sussex · **Posted:** Sat Jul 15, 2023 5:57 pm

Quote:

Most of you are answering the question as I would expect, that this rule (if proved to be correct) would take away the potential of you getting a return booking from an area that you are dropping off in, and I get that...

For some drivers it is indeed a 1 in 100 (if that) situation, but for many drivers that work in a city or large town with several councils sharing the same location, it could be 1 in 2 jobs.

In my view, the reason posters are answering the question the way they are is because they are correct.

Sussex · **Posted:** Sat Jul 15, 2023 6:00 pm

Quote:

The biggest mischief is that of drivers from other areas working within the area that you are licensed, if that doesn't happen to you then fair play, but it happens in many other areas and has to stop.

It is a very big mischief, and the government needs to address the situation. However, this needs new legislation, not a review of old ones.

Chris the Fish · **Posted:** Sat Jul 15, 2023 11:04 pm

Wardy wrote:

This is indeed why cross border has been accepted by authorities as being legal and possibly arouse from discussions at the trade events that officers attend, it most certainly has not been argued in court.

Sorry to go right back to your first post Wardy, but I decided to ferret round on this. I am sure not too many have bought a copy of "Button on Taxis Licensing Law and Practice", but I did. At about £130.00 a go, going to a Central Library would be cheaper.

At para 12.21 your question is covered. He quotes 2 Court Cases, one of them is on here https://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/vi ... =13&t=4659 and the other can be found with a Google search or https://swarb.co.uk/windsor-and-maidenh ... t=cmp-true

The Windsor case is more about "Advertise there, Licence here, work anywhere", Adur v Fry is more apposite I think to your problem at hand.

I can't copy Button, but 12.21 opens with:
Quote
It is clear that, provided the three licenses required in relation to a private hire vehicle (operator, vehicle and driver) have all been issued by the same authority, that is to say they "match", then the private hire vehicle can undertake journeys anywhere in England and Wales. That is irrespective of the local authority area where the journey commences, areas through which the journey passes and, ultimately, the area where the journey ends.
End Quote.

As a result of this, and I can see there are more Cases supporting Ardur v Fry, I would suggest you withdraw your accusation and argument and do an awful lot more research before you either drop it altogether or re present it.

You may think that I am having a go at you, I really am not, I am trying to be helpful. I am impressed that you are trying to do something to sort the mess that Taxi and PH legislation are in. But this is not the argument to have.

grandad · **Joined:** Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm **Posts:** 19652

Chris the Fish wrote:

Wardy wrote:

This is indeed why cross border has been accepted by authorities as being legal and possibly arouse from discussions at the trade events that officers attend, it most certainly has not been argued in court.

Sorry to go right back to your first post Wardy, but I decided to ferret round on this. I am sure not too many have bought a copy of "Button on Taxis Licensing Law and Practice", but I did. At about £130.00 a go, going to a Central Library would be cheaper.

At para 12.21 your question is covered. He quotes 2 Court Cases, one of them is on here https://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/vi ... =13&t=4659 and the other can be found with a Google search or https://swarb.co.uk/windsor-and-maidenh ... t=cmp-true

The Windsor case is more about "Advertise there, Licence here, work anywhere", Adur v Fry is more apposite I think to your problem at hand.

I can't copy Button, but 12.21 opens with:
Quote
It is clear that, provided the three licenses required in relation to a private hire vehicle (operator, vehicle and driver) have all been issued by the same authority, that is to say they "match", then the private hire vehicle can undertake journeys anywhere in England and Wales. That is irrespective of the local authority area where the journey commences, areas through which the journey passes and, ultimately, the area where the journey ends.
End Quote.

As a result of this, and I can see there are more Cases supporting Ardur v Fry, I would suggest you withdraw your accusation and argument and do an awful lot more research before you either drop it altogether or re present it.

You may think that I am having a go at you, I really am not, I am trying to be helpful. I am impressed that you are trying to do something to sort the mess that Taxi and PH legislation are in. But this is not the argument to have.

I am not sure that the point Wardy is making is actually covered by what you have put. Basically the law says that if the 3 badges match then a PH can do work anywhere. What Wardy is saying is that although that is correct but the proviso is that the job anywhere can only be accepted whilst you are actually within your licensing district.
Now the situation I can have, and ofted do have is that our computerised dispatch system will dispatch a job to me to say go from melton Mowbray, my area to Birmingham airport. A journey of around 1 hour. But it will onlt take me 10 minutes before I am outside my district. Now I already know that there is a job back from Birmingham airport 40 minutes after I drop of at the airport but because I am already on a job my PDA will not be able to send me the follow on job that has been booked in for the past 2 weeks until I clear the job I am on. This means that by the time I am at the airport and clear I could not possibly get back to my own area in time to accept the follow on job and get back to the airport in time. As far as I am aware the act was never intended to stop me from accepting the return job when I am already there and as such I don't see how Wardy can be right. Can anyone actually show me where in any legislation that it states that you must return to your own area before accepting a new job? This situation happens a lot with our company for instance dropping at luton and picking up at Heathrow or Stansted or any combination you choose to make.

Chris the Fish · **Posted:** Sun Jul 16, 2023 4:29 pm

That is easy Grandad.

1. The Legislation, though somewhat vague, allows a Driver and PH Vehicle licensed in one area to accept a job outside its area so long as the job is sent from an Operator Licensed in the same area where Car and diver are Licensed. IT DOES NOT SAY YOU MUST RETURN TO YOUR HOME AREA.

2. Case Law, Ardur v Fry, clears it up, clarifies it, so kind of amplifies it.

Sussex · **Posted:** Sun Jul 16, 2023 4:45 pm

Quote:

2. Case Law, Ardur v Fry, clears it up, clarifies it, so kind of amplifies it.

Boy did Adur f*** up.

Kevin Fry had Hove (this is prior to B&H becoming B&H) cars on his fleet, and Adur cars on his fleet. His office was (and still is under different ownership) in Hove.

Adur prosecuted Fry for giving work to Hove cars that were working in Adur. But because of the ABC rule it was deemed 100% legal by the court.

I often wonder if Adur actually used their brains a bit more, and prosecuted Adur cars for working in Adur, whether the outcome might have been different and the likes of Uber would struggle to be as big as they are in the UK. :-k

grandad · **Joined:** Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm **Posts:** 19652

Chris the Fish wrote:

IT DOES NOT SAY YOU MUST RETURN TO YOUR HOME AREA.

This is the point. Wardy seems to think it DOES say that when everyone else knows that it doesn't.

Taxi Driver Online

Cross Border Hiring, and why I believe it to be illegal...

Who is online