Taxi Driver Online

Think I'd better leave the legal nitty gritty to Sussex and Chris, but at a rough guess I'd say the mischief being addressed by the 1976 Act was simply unregulated minicabs, and to that extent the cross-border issue doesn't detract from that mischief being addressed when the legislation was enacted and enforced by local authorities.

Not sure how much you know about the history of it all, but cross-border working has been going on for decades, and long before the Deregulation Act, or apps, or Uber.

So as long as the 'triple lock' of operator licence, plate and badge were issued by the same licensing authority, then cars could work anywhere.

That's long been, essentially, what's termed settled law. Of course, many people have tried to pick holes in it, particularly since the Deregulation Act and Uber etc, but to no avail. Quite a few local authorities have taken legal advice on it all in recent years, but have essentially decided that there's little scope to challenge the long-standing interpretation of the 1976 Act and the right to roam, provided the triple-lock is in place.

The Deregulation Act merely facilitated all that by allowing operators to sub-contract work to cars plated by another authority, again as long as the triple-lock is in place (correct me if I'm wrong).

And the Deregulation Act dates from 2015, and was set in train by the Law Commission, whose investigation started I think in 2011. So despite the popular conception, it was more about facilitating traditional operators and ways of working (overturning the Shanks case about sub-contracting to another operator, most obviously). But which, of course, facilitated Uber and app working, in particular.

So to the extent parliament legislated in 2015 to essentially facilitate cross-border working then I suspect that confirms that parliament considered the mischief addressed by the 1976 Act was regulation per se, and not thwarting a right to roam.

And, in any case, the mischief rule might be useful if there was some ambiguity about the right to roam, but since that's probably better characterized as settled law then the mischief rule is irrelevant, even if the mischief to be addressed was cross-border working.

Likewise, as the stuff posted by Dundee RMT makes clear, the Scottish legislation is fairly unambiguous in saying that cross-border working is the mischief to be addressed, and that cars can't habitually do work or be based in an area other than the one they're licensed in.

So to the extent that if parliament had seen cross-border working as a mischief in 1976 then they would have passed legislation more like the Scottish Act, or at least would have revisited it in 2015 rather than passing legislation which actually facilitated cross-border working.

Of course, the legislation was essentially written with bricks and mortar offices and landlines in mind, and to that extent there may be some mileage in the likes of the Cardiff opinion insofar as the legislation might be ambiguous with regards to apps and clouds and all that.

But I doubt if that detracts in any way from the intention of parliament, and I can't see much evidence to suggest that parliament ever intended to stop cars working cross-border.

And that, in rather big nutshell StuartW, is why Wardy shouldn't spend any money on Lawyers and should also be careful not to land in any kind of Court where costs could be awarded against him.

What he could sensibly consider is asking to be heard at the Quasi-Judicial Taxi Committee or whatever they call it in his Manor. He could make his case, then hear, probably from the LA's Legal Department, their case that they would bring against. Apart from time there is no loss of anything.

I think it is great that Wardy is prepared to do something, but on this one, he won't win.

_________________
Chris The Fish

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

It needs a complete rewrite.

The number of taxi/PH drivers that know the fine minutia of the operating sections of the act can be counted on two hands, and the courts have been busy dealing with questions about the act for the last 47 years.

Great for the legal profession, sh** for the taxi/PH trade.

_________________
IDFIMH

In all fairness, it was the perfect act, in your view, that has allowed Uber to do what they do and get away with it.

_________________
IDFIMH

I take the view that a Labour government will look at the issue of cross border, and who knows they might not make it worse.

_________________
IDFIMH

Think Cardiff are just being polite to you, which isn't a bad thing I may add.

The reason it hasn't been decided by the courts is because no one thinks it will go against how the likes of Uber work.

And to be honest I agree.

_________________
IDFIMH

Section 75 of the LGMPA 1976 does not provide an exemption for operators from section 46(1)(d)): (i.e. there is no equivalent exemption to that provided for drivers and vehicles from sections 46(a), (b) & (c)). Thus, whilst drivers and vehicles may lawfully undertake journeys “which ultimately have no connection with the area in which they are licensed” (Shanks), provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings may only be made in the controlled district in which the operator is licensed.

Indeed, Chris. Maybe the most obvious example was City of York Council. Recall that the local trade got an opinion from Gerald Gouriet QC (as he was then), which said cross-bordering was illegal.

But York got its own legal advice, and as I recall it the advice said that Gouriet's opinion was 'untenable'.

And that the council would be putting taxpayers' money at risk by following his advice, which would of course be challenged in court.

But, of course, a lawyer will always express an opinion one way or the other if you pay their fees, irrespective of whether there's any real substance and merit to the case they make.

And, indeed, didn't Gouriet reappear a wee while later representing a private hire operator against the council, and he then made cross-border working sound like the best thing since sliced bread?

There are a lot of old threads on that sort of stuff in York, but here's a few more obvious ones for anyone unaware of what went on in York:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=34776

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=36667

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=36324&hilit=gouriet#p404954

Now have I got this right.
I take a passenger from my district into another district in my private hire car licensed in my district then this is OK.
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. 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 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 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?

_________________
Grandad,
To support my charity text MAYORWALK to 70085 to donate £5

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

_________________
Chris The Fish

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

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.)

Illegal plying for hire, more precisely.

Plying for hire is largely passive - just sitting in an inappropriate place waiting for passengers (a PHV beside a train station or nightclub, for example, or an HC doing likewise out-of-area). Touting is proactive - actually approaching potential customers, most obviously. And neither PHDs nor HCDs can tout

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

_________________
Grandad,
To support my charity text MAYORWALK to 70085 to donate £5

Mr Wardy is implying the act states that. I do not share that view.

_________________
IDFIMH

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.